PrintDecember 1, 2006
How the Media and the Left Have Doomed Darfur
It is ironic that the very people who claim to have the most concern for the plight of the innocent men, women, and children being massacred in the Darfur region of the Republic of Sudan are complicit in this humanitarian crisis.
On many levels this conflict represents a failure of the media and liberal ideology with its distain for decisive military action. The government of Sudan is backing the Arab Janjaweed rebels as they slaughter and displace thousands of non-Arab inhabitants of the Darfur region. This conflict represents a government annihilating its own population and an utter failure on the part of the United Nations to intervene. This is a military conflict that necessitates a militarily-imposed solution.
The problem with the solution is that it requires a significant investment of time and troops on the part of any nation or coalition to truly affect change. The United Nations has been shown to be truly impotent when it comes to affecting real change and it will not commit the necessary resources to militarily impose a stop to the on-going genocide in that country. It can pass resolution after resolution but it lacks the will to put any teeth behind its mandates. In times of crisis when the UN fails the world then looks to the United States to assist cleaning up the mess no other country can or will deal with, and herein is where the problem lies.
The US has a track record of attempting to deal with humanitarian crisis like the one in Darfur and in many cases does so quite successfully. The problem arises when the media become involved. In all armed conflicts there will be casualties, which, the media then seize upon and begin to mold perceptions that we are failing as a country. In no time the calls ring out for our capitulation and retreat from an otherwise successful engagement.
People concerned for Darfur in this country chide the US government to help put an end to the genocide but are unwilling to support military involvement. Our leaders have been burned too many times to commit troops into an unstable region against a government-sponsored rebel force. American support is present at the onset of such a campaign but as soon as the first soldier is killed the media start pointing fingers and wringing their hands in panic.
One needs only to look at the Tet offensive in Viet-Nam or the situation in Somalia. The Tet offensive was a stunning military victory for the US and was portrayed as a massive defeat. The media served to break the will of the American people to continue to fight, something the Vietcong could never have done on their own. In Somalia, our forces were wining on the ground and making a difference in ending the human suffering until the "Black Hawk Down" incident when we lost 18 brave Americans. The mission was successful, however, the media portrayal led to a shift in public support for the effort with a subsequent withdrawal of forces. Our withdraw then had the unfortunate effect of emboldening a certain Al-Qaeda leader and we all know what the result of that was.
Why should Darfur be any different? The liberals in this country send out cries of "Help the people in Darfur" and they hold rallies, sign petitions, and involve international courts and organizations to condemn and bring charges against the perpetrators, all the while the body count is racking up and there is no real hope insight. They call on our President to get involved and stop the genocide, but the only way to do that is to go in and take out the Janjaweed rebels and the government that is providing support and build a nation based on freedom and liberty.
Sound familiar? It should as it is the exact mission we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and it is all too evident how it is being portrayed in the media. Darfur is doomed because the very people calling for the United States to save the people of that region are the same ones willing to leave the people of Iraq to wither and die on the vine. What will happen if we do commit to stopping the atrocity in Darfur and something goes wrong? Or the whole process takes longer than one season of the hottest new fall TV show, whose head will the media call for? Will we get reports of an unbeatable rebel insurgency? How long until the natives get restless and call for an exit strategy in Darfur?
It is an absolute travesty that a region that truly needs our assistance, as we are the only nation on the face of the planet that can be of true assistance, will have to suffer through half measures and ineffective humanitarian solutions because the US media has so inaccurately portrayed successful events in American military history as losses that no politician will be willing to electively choose to engage in a conflict of that scope.
The conflict in Darfur is abhorrent and tragic; however, that tragedy is compounded by the fact that the United States has lost the will to act in the face of tyrants, dictators, and thugs, not because we are soft as a people, but because the media has so distorted the truth and sided with our enemies it has become almost impossible to win, even if we do.
