Hitchens on Darfur and Intervention
Our Man Hitchens (okay Stuart...not your man, just mine), in dissecting the 'realist' approach used in Darfur, came up with what I think is the strongest refutation of those who campaign against intervention and advocate 'peace' (i.e., a 'peace' defined implicitely (and most recently by Brent Scowcroft)...but never honestly... as a situation where the U.S. is not involved in conflict, as opposed the occurrence somewhere of deadly conflict). The clincher:
"Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens. (emphasis mine) Our policy in Darfur has not just failed to rescue a stricken black African population: It has actually assisted the Sudanese Islamists in completing their policy of racist murder."
I'm not one to argue that we should intervene wherever there is injustice or conflict. We can't. But I will never yield to the arguments against our intervention, such as in the case of Iraq, that our choice to intervene was one between war and peace. Such arguments are not just facile, they are insidious. Rather, our decision to intervene was a choice between, as it so often is, a war on our terms, and one on another's.
Anyway, as always, read the whole thing.