Darfur: Hotel Rwanda or Blackhawk Down?

Recently, I've been thinking about the tragedy that continues to unfold in Darfur, Sudan. On one hand, it's a complicated, multi-faceted situation with many players. But there is also the stark reality of tens of thousands of deaths and unspeakable misery.

What should the United States do? My natural inclination is to stop the murder of non-combatants. Anyone who has seen Hotel Rwanda will wonder why the international community didn't lift a finger to stop the genocide. But then there is the realization that this could potentially drag us into a very messy situation a la Black Hawk Down, which depicted the deaths of scores of U.S. Marines in Mogadishu on a peace-keeping mission. There are plenty of good arguments for and against intervention:

Arguments for intervention:

America has a moral obligation to do what it can to stop genocide because it is THE world superpower. This will not always be the case, but it is now, so let's take advantage of the situation to do good.

Sudan's regime is run by really bad men who support the slave trade, wage war against non-Arab Sudanese, and kill Christians. They don't deserve any leniency.

Don't hold your breath for the U.N. to act--Sudan was actually recently voted a member of the U.N. Council for Human Rights in good standing, and veto-wielding China and Russia are friends of Khartoum.

Arguments against intervention:

Freedom isn't free--U.S. servicemen will die, and not necessarily to protect their country (but perhaps their country's interests).

The Chinese won't be too happy considering they are Sudan's largest trading partner, basically exchanging oil for weapons. Government-owned Sinopec has serious investments in Darfur oilfields and is actually at the heart of the conflict, since the Sudanese government basically wants to clear out the region because of its oil resources.

Right now isn't really a good time to be streching our military resources.

Interestingly, Madeline Albright had a sensible piece in the Washington Post today on "realistic idealism" in U.S. foreign policy. Although she's addressing the usefulness of promoting democracy in the Middle East, her wisdom applies to Darfur also:

A successful foreign policy must begin with the world as it is but also work for what we would like it to be. On a globe this complicated, even the purest of principles must sometimes be diluted. Still, we get up in the morning because of hope, which cold-blooded cynicism can neither inspire nor satisfy. If all America stands for is stability, no one will follow us for the simple reason that we aren't going anywhere.

Please tell me what you guys think!