He doesn't really add anything to the debate but raises a point I have been meaning to discuss
But hope is not a plan, and right now it strikes me that the only realistic option for stopping the genocide is to be prepared for a full-scale invasion and long-term occupation of Sudan. I could probably be talked into that if someone presented a serious military plan showing where the troops would come from and how they'd get there, but I haven't seen it yet.In my view, the lack of any sort of "a serious military plan" is a prime example of the world's complete indifference to this issue. If people were serious about Darfur, various think tanks, commissions, and foreign policy journals would be working on "military plans" right now. Not real plans, mind you, but theoretical proposals that might entail military action. That is what experts and think tanks are supposed to do.
And if Bush cared about this issue, he would appoint a commission to either examine these various (nonexistent) proposals or come up with proposals of its own.
If there was a serious desire to stop this genocide, serious people would be working on ways to do so. But that isn't happening.
Action on Darfur is not being hindered by a lack of potential military plans; rather, the complete lack of military plans is the result of intentional inaction by those in power.
For more, read Eric Reeves' latest analysis on the international community's unwillingness to provide a serious response to insecurity faced by civilians and humanitarian workers.