Bush’s Credibility Issue, Part 2: Sudan and Iran.

As many of you know, Foreign Policy is my favorite issue, so it’s no surprise that I couldn’t stay away from it. Of course, I couldn’t cover it in one nice neat entry either. No no, I’ll take the opportunity to be long winded about this one. Bush’s Foreign Policy is the gift that keeps on giving.

In case you’ve just woken up from your Rove-induced hypnosis, let me update you on some world affairs. There’s a terrible crisis happening in the Darfur region of Sudan, where thousands of people are dying every day of starvation. This is happening because the Government of Sudan (GoS) has paid a motley crew of armed bandits called “the Janjaweed” to kill, rape, pillage, and destroy everything in the region. The people of Darfur are ethnically African, hence of a different ethnicity than most members of the GoS (who are mostly Arab). The women and children of the region (nearly all the men are dead) have fled to the farthest reaches of Western Sudan and to Chad. Refugee camps have been constructed, and they live there. Trouble is, no relief efforts with food (or medicine, or anything else) can get in to resupply these camps, because the Janjaweed are not letting them get through. The United States Congress has declared that the situation in Darfur amounts to genecide.

In such a situation, even the most pacifist of us could be in favor of at least sending troops to escort said relief efforts, ensuring that they reach their destination safely. Those of us who are a bit more hawkish, might find this reason for war. After all, America can’t just stand idly by while genocide is being committed. We have gone to war to stop genocide in other regions. Why not Sudan?

Because our military has been stretched too far of course. No one in their right mind would suggest full military intervention in a place such as Sudan right now. We’ve got our hands full with Iraq alone—let alone the situation in Afghanistan.

But let’s just do a thought experiment for a moment:

The U.S. never went to war in Iraq. Weapons inspectors were given time to do a thorough search for WMD. Perhaps they are still there, making sure on a continuous basis that WMD are not being produced.

Due to insecurity in Afghanistan, the U.S. increased troop numbers there, allowing it to secure cities other than Kabul only. Afghanistan has been made much safer, and the upcoming elections look to produce successful results. Because of this very responsible move, Osama Bin Laden has been captured.

What would the American public say to major troop involvement in Sudan? What would Republicans say?

Surely, there would be resistance to military action—there always is. But there would certainly be less than there had been to the Iraq War, since there is a clear cause and a clear objective. There is, this time, a smoking gun.

Republican leaders who now are stressing caution and a need for regional troops to do the dirty work in Sudan —a near impossibility due to the disorganization of most African militaries, not to mention governments (additionally, many African states are involved in other conflicts, and can’t spare the troops)— would instead insist on military action as soon as possible, seeing as human rights are being violated and the Government of Sudan has supported terrorists in the past.

Then, in our thought experiment, couldn’t we expect a great groundswell of support in the U.S. and in other countries to take action in Sudan RIGHT NOW (or even several weeks ago)? Since we wouldn’t have all the troops pinned down in Iraq, military action would be conceiveable. Since we hadn’t cooled relations toward us throughout the world, countries would be willing to join us. Since this would be a multi-troop effort (I imagine NATO action) the population there would not believe that the U.S. was trying to occupy them or turn them into a colony. Since they would be saved from immediate, life-threatening oppression the population really would greet the troops with open arms. This would be an endeavor that could show what the U.S. really stands for. An opportunity for the U.S. to really lead the world, to be an example.

Sadly, the U.S. is in a position to do no such thing. The Iraq endeavor has plunged us into a quagmire that will take years to get out of. And not only has it ruined our standing among other countries in the world, it has handicapped us. It has made us impotent in the face of the worlds biggest crisis.

Which leads to the possibility for another crisis—in Iran.

The government of Iran has refused to give in to U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment. Enriching uranium is what you do if you want to make nuclear bombs. Why hasn’t the Iranian government backed down? Surely the international community would be threatening heavy repercussions if Iran didn’t stop such action immediately.

Sadly, it isn’t.

Why not? Because no one is willing to provoke Iran at the moment. No country has the economic or military capability to stand up to Iran—except the U.S.

But once again, the U.S. can’t threaten any action, because George W. Bush has made the U.S. impotent. Iran can feel free to flout U.N. resolutions, since it knows there won’t be any repercussions.

And that’s why, on Sudan and Iran, George Bush has no credibility. When he claims that we have gone into Iraq because it’s part of the wider war on terror and for greater moral reasons, we can find that Sudan has established links with Al-Qaeda, and is committing human atrocities on a much grosser scale than Saddam Hussein was. After all, the U.S. Congress never declared that genocide was occurring in Iraq. When he says that we had to go into Iraq to show that U.N. resolutions must be obeyed, we see how that war made it impossible to enforce U.N. resolutions in both Sudan and Iran which require much more urgency.

Of course, both of these crises occurred after the start of the Iraq war, so how could we have known?

We couldn’t have. But these types of crises are not new—they happen in one form or another, in one country or another, quite often. While we can’t predict the next crisis, we can expect our leaders to put our troops into danger ONLY when it’s absolutely necessary. And we can expect them to hold to their statements about protecting democracy, freedom and human rights.

Otherwise, the consequences are instability, impotence, and a lack of credibility when real crises occur.

And these are the consequences that the U.S. and the rest of the world are paying because of Bush’s war in Iraq.