|
*Moderator*
First post: 6/12/2008
Last post: 4/27/2009
Total posts: 117
|
With Obama's selection of Susan Rice, a Darfur hawk, to be the Ambassador to the United Nations, speculation is rampant that Obama is serious about ramping up a U.S. military role in Darfur. Obama's campaign rhetoric was notably more hawkish on Darfur than McCain's, and Susan Rice's rhetoric has been even more hawkish than Obama's. However, Team Obama-Rice may discover what another leader with hawkish rhetoric on Darfur, President Bush, discovered: there are not many good military options for the United States and the senior brass of the U.S. military are adamantly opposed to pursuing any of them. I worked this issue from the inside and found it very frustrating. My guess is that Obama and Rice will end up doing roughly what Bush and the other Rice did: use the bully pulpit to keep pressure on the Khartoum regime and on the African Union, but not materially ramp up the role of the U.S. military. What is your view? Bill: I think the day of "humanitarian intervention" is indeed over, but mostly because the U.S. military is over-engaged and there is a general feeling that the Europeans and other wealthy and capable nations should do more. Having said that, Peter is wrong on Darfur. The creation of a U.S. Africa Command this year brings with it its own bureaucratic imperatives, and while for now, the new command is focused on terrorism and building an infrastructure and capability, it is fundamentally challenged by Darfur and anarchy in Somalia. I look to AFRICOM to develop a "new" concept for what we used to call "intervention," just as the Army readjusted counter-insurgency doctrine to deal with the problem of terrorism. An invasion? Probably not, but I can't see Obama doing "nothing," and we forget how high the American bully pulpit is and how powerful our new president is as preacher.
|
