by Kyle Pynn

Created on: July 03, 2007   Last Updated: July 30, 2011

Bomb Sudan they are supporters of terrorism and genocide! This sounds much like the mighty call of a war hawk ready to rid the world of all notorious acts of violence and the evil regimes that allow terrorism and genocide to exist within their national boundaries. This does not mean, however, that this is the cry of all hawks. Yes it is true that Khartoum has knowingly harbored terrorist and the Darfur is a clear example of genocide. Even under these circumstances there are reasons that the United States should not take military action against the Khartoum government.

This paper will address:

-Responsible parties of Darfur genocide.

-Risks versus gains in attacking Sudan.

-Lessons learned from Iraq applied to Sudan.

-Alternate Course of action in the defense of Darfur and the African continent.

-The Chinese connection.

RESPONSIBLE PARTIES OF DARFUR GENOCIDE

As a government, its leaders are responsible for the actions of their people. Just because Sudanese "militias" carried out the deaths of half a million Darfuri's does not mean that the Sudanese government is absolved from responsibility. Sudanese government officials who made the decision to use "militia" forces to carry out these killings as well as members of the militias directly responsible for the deaths should be charged for executing acts of genocide against Darfuri's.

However, there needs to be clarification on the "half a million". If we are talking about Darfuri's who were killed as a fighting force sent against Sudan-backed militia's, then these were killings done for individual self-preservation between actual fighting members. The women and children who were executed based on their ethnicity or religious culture would definitely be classified as acts of genocide.

When dealing with the issue of genocide the U.S. "moral obligation" tends to take priority over a realist approach to genocidal killings. Most people would not argue that genocide is one of the most notorious acts that one group of people can carry out against another. In deciding on whether to take military action, moral obligation should serve as a guide not the underlying or main cause for carrying out such operations. All factors should be considered since moral obligation is not a stand alone reason for carrying out a particular mission in conflict resolution.

RISKS VERSUS GAINS

Sudan is not the only country to harbor terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and his international organization of terrorists. If Sudan were to be ranked among

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>