Given that oil has been discovered in Darfur, where genocide has been happening for years, why wouldn't the Bush White House show more interest? Bush, a former oil company executive, has been big oil's friend since moving to Washington, D.C. This would appear to be Bush's chance to earn high marks with human rights activists and potentially obtain contracts for American companies at the same time. What am I missing here?

Perhaps, Bush has avoided direct American involvement in Darfur, because the government of Sudan President Bashir has been inconsistent in following up with what has been committed. However, that did not keep Bush from acting in Iraq! If American troops became active in Darfur, American technological superiority would be immediately apparent. Due to years of protests by human rights groups, it seems likely that Bush could easily make a coalition of the willing with troops from other countries.

Perhaps, Bush has avoided direct American involvement in Darfur, because the size of the Darfur oil reserves are not fully documented? However, that could indicate that there is more oil there than expected based on current estimates. Of course, the future involvement of American oil companies is not guaranteed. However, the chances would definitely seem to be increased if America had direct involvement in ending genocide.

Perhaps, Bush has avoided direct American involvement in Darfur, because there are no U.S. troops available to deploy? However, there are special units in America's military who are always available for deployment on short notice. America could use special forces, then step back and allow other countries to put troops on the ground.
America could stay in the background and support others to do the "heavy lifting" of maintaining security on the ground.

Perhaps, Bush has avoided direct American involvement in Darfur, because he is too busy with activities related to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine and Iran? However, that has not kept Bush/Cheney from seeking involvement with Iran, another country with large oil reserves. Action in Sudan would be much less risky in terms of affecting others in the Middle East, in comparison to an American attack on Iran.

Perhaps, Bush has avoided direct American involvement in Darfur, because American oil companies are not interested in Darfur oil? That would seem unlikely, given the fact that oil is now selling at $90/barrel. American dependence on oil imports remains a key issue and additional potential sources are needed.

Perhaps, Bush has avoided direct American involvement in Darfur, because he is afraid of getting involved in such a politically unstable area. However, why would Bush fear involvement in Darfur, but not in Iraq?

Ordinarily, one would expect neo-cons, such as Bush/Cheney to be eager for intervention in a country with newly discovered oil reserves. It seems out of character for Bush/Cheney to be so reticent and slow to act on Darfur. It seems like a unique chance to take the initiative and redeem his "Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strikes". There must be some strategic implications that cause Bush/Cheney to refrain, because it seems like something they would be very interested in pursuing.

Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Since Darfur has oil, why does President Bush not step in to stop the genocide??
We want to hear your view. Write now!