Question

Walter,

I keep asking myself whether we should intervene in Sudan too. The argument against it is that they pose no near-term threat to us.

The argument for it would be (1) humanitarian logic and/or (2) "War on Terror" advanced preventative action. The former needs little comment. How long can we stand by and watch the atrocities that are happening there? As long as we did with Rwanda? As long as we are heavily committed elsewhere we can tell outselves we can't manage one more front, but that's an argument of convenience. Philosophically I am opposed to intervening where we don't need to in our own defense, but morally the situation SCREAMS for intervention.

On the second point, the trouble's root is Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism is at the root of the terrorist problem we dealing with everywhere else. If we leave Sudan alone it is apt to become another Afghanistan, with all that implies. From a purely defensive position, we can probably afford to concentrate on other things that are more pressing, but sooner or later we need to address the problem in Sudan (I don't expect to see anyone else do it).

I am ever so happy I don't have to make that decision.

Carefully dodging answering the question, I'll point out that no intelligent person would respond to this as a binary choice: there are innumerable types and levels of (military, specifically) "intervention." It's hardly an all-or-nothing choice in Sudan, and it wasn't in Iraq.

So in essence, I don't find this, as phrased, a meaningful question. "How do you believe we should intervene, or not, in Sudan, right now?" and "how did you believe we should [have] intervene[d], or not, in Iraq, in the month of X?" are the relevant questions. Then compare.

Sure we should, but I don't think we can. There are many places on this Earth that could use some US military intervention, but all of our military is tied up right now.

I'd say it's time for the UN to pick up the slack and show us how it's done. Regain that moral authority. ;-)