Bin Laden's sudden interest in Darfur is a shrewd move, indeed. In addition to the reasons you note, it is important to remember that the left (back handed supporters of OBL) have effectively- and deliberately- ignored Darfur, as they have ignored and abandoned every place where Islamic atrocities occur.

Mauritania, Algeria, Nigeria, the Philippines and a host of other places where Islamic turmoil is the order of the day, are ignored.

Any American intervention in Darfur will be 'spun' by the left in concert with OBL. They don't give a damn about the victims of the janjaweed slaughter.

Millions have died in Africa and elsewhere, and the left has gone strangely silent- unless the discussion centers around the US, Israel and BusHitler.
sigmund, carl and alfred | Email | Homepage | 04.23.06 - 5:31 pm | #

Of course it would be a trap. Having seen German reporting on the Balkan interventions, I know every civilian casualty would be attributed to our cowboy attitudes, our black and white morality, and our lack of nuanced understanding of foreign cultures. And naturally EU diplomats would chuckle over our ignorance in their talks with Muslim business partners.

I recommend humility here. Since we poor dumb Amis can't stop a war without hurting people, we will leave it to our betters. In ten years or so we can applaud their humity as they make a Clinton-style apology for their failure to act.
expat | Email | Homepage | 04.23.06 - 7:26 pm | #

I agree, it could be a trap.
I think bin laden also wants our resources and attention diverted from Iran and possibly Syria.
Since the EU and UN know how to conduct a perfect war, w/o a single civilian casualty, let them deal with Sudan.
Besides, with us supplying logistical support, we are doing more than our share.
So, by all means EU and UN...show us how it's done, if you ever develop a backbone to do it, that is.
We're waiting...
Ben USN (Ret) | Email | Homepage | 04.23.06 - 7:51 pm | #

I'd say OBL has figured out that the EU is actively against intervention in Darfur, thus blocking any hope of the UN approving any meaningful action. He is going to try to present himself as being the deciding factor in keeping the west from intervening.

It's a fundraising scheme. He doesn't have a lot of victories to report, so he is going to try to take credit for this one. Furthermore, he's forced to make some sort of statement because Iran is seizing the spotlight for waving the wand of nuclear destruction in front of the west.

This is a Sunni-vs-Shiite, Arab vs Persian thing, and OBL needs to be seen as influential.

This whole thing has always been about money. The attacks on the US were a recruiting poster and donation campaign.
MaxedOutMama | Email | Homepage | 04.23.06 - 8:19 pm | #

MOM,

Good point. Isn't it odd how the Islamic world gets together to oppose Danish cartoonists but ignores its own intramural squabbles?
expat | Email | Homepage | 04.23.06 - 9:02 pm | #

Let's instead ask if it makes sense to invervene in Darfur when intervention in Iran seems increasingly necessary...

If Iraq is, indeed, winding down, then that means we AREN'T stretched too thin right now and CAN divert our attention to someplace of critical American interest which is the only justification for overt "pre-emptive" types of action.

I also think we should just ask for UN permission, since it's quite clear we aren't supposed to do anything without THAT (Yes, yes, we had it in Iraq, too, but that's not the point -- we don't really WANT to intervene in The Sudan).

In 10 years, when the UN've stopped dithering and the population of the Sudan is at 10% of current levels, then they might get around to giving us permission.
obloodyhell | Email | Homepage | 04.23.06 - 9:06 pm | #

In the event of a war with Iran, tervention in Darfur could draw US forces in two directions at once -- towards Iran and directly away from it. War on two fronts, anyone?
Evil Pundit | Email | Homepage | 04.23.06 - 11:33 pm | #

ObL is simply helping the left help him.
Friend of USA | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 12:33 am | #

I'm against using US troops for "humanitarian" purposes. I'm pretty hard-nosed about this. I believe we should commit our military only when it is in the strategic interest of America to do so. Iraq, Iran, Syria? Hell, yes. Bosnia and Darfur? No way.

Of course, I don't get paid to think strategically, so I will allow the possibility that I might be missing something.
rickl | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 3:16 am | #

Note: JUST WANT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT BLOGGER IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO POST ON THE BLOG THIS MORNING AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN THEY WILL BE BACK UP. SORRY!!! I WILL CHECK BACK INTERMITTANTLY, BUT AM IN MEETINGS ALL DAY. COMMENTS ( THRU HALOSCAN) ARE STILL OPEN

DR. SANITY
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 7:45 am | #

Methinks the doc should investigate other blogsites. She seems to be having a lot of problems with it and there are a lot of others who have gotten sufficiently disgusted with it that they've left, too.
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 9:11 am | #

I wonder why France/Germany/Russia don't send troops to end the slaughter in the Sudan? After all, it's not like those troops are being used anywhere else. Since those countries didn't want to help us in Iraq, they should do the "right thing" and go to the Sudan! But then, of course, the world would witness yet another French surrender!
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 9:30 am | #

Have France, Germany and Russia send troops to stop the slaughter? When have these countries ever stopped a slaughter (Ivory Coast, Bosnia and Chechnya)?. God help any peoples "helped" by this triumvirate.
Danny Lemieux | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 10:14 am | #

Perhaps he wants to take our focus off of the real crisis: Iran.

If, as some have speculated, Bin Laden is in Iran rather than Waziristan or Afghanistan somewhere, and hence at least on some level in league with the Shia Mullahs, there would be much good sense in getting the West bogged down somewhere else and focused on that rather than on dealing with Iran before they get their nukes. Seems very obvious to me.
CatoRenasci | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 11:10 am | #

It's pretty obvious that the UN can't stop genocide anywhere without the USA's involvement as Lion's share of UN force.... and it's obvious that whatever the heck "the international community" is minus the USA, it's next to useless in terms of manpower to stop bloodshed... so we really are the de facto "world's policeman" whether we like it or not.

It's also obvious that the Left doesn't care about black people otherwise they'd be sending their best and bravest (if they have any) to Africa to act as humanitarian shields, rape surrogates, and diplomatic cannon fodder.
John | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 12:15 pm | #

Trap Schmap,

I emphatically do not think we should do ANYTHING in Sudan.

The time has come for us to say to the international community.

"Sorry we've screwed up the world by ignoring your wisdom. Show us how it's done. We will watch and learn. We can be cowboyish, arrogant, and stupid, but after all the smoke has cleared and we've had a chance to think about it, we want nothing more than to do things the most effective way.

We will be watching.

And learning.

And sitting this on out.

Good luck."
Randall | Email | Homepage | 04.24.06 - 9:51 pm | #