OFF THE RESERVATION. I'm sorry to admit that I'm edging into full-blown Chomskyism, but I totally don't understand why we're even debating whether or not to bomb Khartoum when the Sudanese government's already agreed to disarm the Janjaweed and halt the killing in Darfur, only to have an African Union-approved peace plan rejected by Darfuri rebels. If we're going to threaten to bomb anyone, shouldn't it be the side refusing to make peace rather than the side that has Arabs on it?
Meanwhile, I used Iraq hawks as my foil in this week's column but it's actually a better argument with regard to Darfur. The WHO says we could prevent over 400,000 measles deaths annually if someone would pony up an additional $332 million in funding. Wouldn't that be easier than intervening in Sudan? Save more lives? Anyone?
Also, yeah, before we start killing people to stop Darfuris from dying, why not send food to starving Darfuris? Wouldn't that be easier than bombing? Cheaper? More helpful?
--Matthew Yglesias
