Americans and Darfurians
By Ed Rawson
Washington Times
September 21, 2006

Todd Lindberg's Tuesday Op-Ed column, "Darfurians in crosshairs," is the best commentary I have seen in the three years that Darfur has been in and out of the international spotlight.

Mr. Lindberg perfectly describes the situation and the obligation of other nations, including the United States, to take "responsibility to protect" the Darfurians from the periodic devastation of their villages and livelihood and from being forced to live in squalid, disease-ridden refugee camps.

Clearly, the situation has reached the point of no return, and unless immediate action is taken, there will no longer be any reason for appeals, rallies and cries for help because the situation will have deteriorated into mere discussions about why and what mistakes were made.

The column ends by stating: "Who will speak up for them and act to vindicate their rights as human beings? That 'responsibility to protect' falls to us." What should the United States do? The president's speech to the United Nations during the General Assembly is encouraging.

Unfortunately, the United Nations has been called upon to field the largest number of peacekeeping missions in its history. At least 100,000 or more troops are projected to be deployed by the beginning of next year.

Despite the pressure for quick action in Darfur, this peacekeeping burden means there likely will be no U.N. or other troops on the ground before Thanksgiving.

It is regrettable that when our president announced he was appointing a special envoy to the United Nations he did not simultaneously pledge a minimum of 2,000 fully equipped troops to be available for Darfur by Oct. 1 and challenge other nations to do likewise.

The present administration's position of limiting our contribution to "logistic support" is unacceptable. The United States has the most powerful military force in the world, including a major base in Djibouti.

Calling upon other countries to risk lives while only agreeing to supply logistic support, is not the best policy for the United States at this time. Our reputation, I deeply regret, is so bad that this proposal might just improve our global standing.

EDWARD RAWSON
Vice president
D.C. Chapter
Citizens for Global Solutions
Washington

+ READ ON WASHINGTON TIMES WEBSITE