Posted on 04/18/2006 3:52:05 AM PDT by IrishMike
The killing in Darfur province of Sudan is terrible, but as a foreign policy problem it is also instructive. In particular, it is exposing the weakness of a strand of U.S. foreign-policy thinking that might be called the Pelosi Doctrine, after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Darfur is the Sudanese province where Arab Janjaweed militia supported by the Khartoum government has murdered an estimated 200,000 mostly black Muslims and displaced another two million. President Bush has requested $439 million in humanitarian aid, proposed a NATO mission to the area (an idea our European allies instantly shot down) and is now pushing for a U.N. peacekeeping contingent to replace the ineffectual forces of the African Union, as well as targeted U.N. sanctions against Sudan's leadership.
As an alternative, consider Ms. Pelosi's position. She has made Darfur a personal priority, demanding action and, to her credit, joining a recent Congressional delegation to Darfur and Khartoum to meet with Vice President Ali Taha, who denied there was anything much amiss. Ms. Pelosi described her experiences with obvious sincerity from the House floor recently. Then she offered this: The Administration must appoint a special envoy to Sudan as a way of "[signaling] that bringing peace and stability to Sudan is a priority of the United States."
Now, why hadn't anyone else thought of that?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Terrific. In Sudan, that and the United Nations will get you exactly what we have now: slaughter.
This kind of "feel-good" and "do-nothing" foreign policy has been frustrating me since the days of Jimmy Carter. They speak in platitudes while people are being murdered.
Like so many in the Dimbulb Party, Nancy is part ostrich.
"But if Ms. Pelosi's outrage over Sudan is more than posturing, she'd focus less on the White House and more on the fecklessness and obstruction of the countries and United Nations that she typically invests with so much moral authority. "
Exactly
Now who else would have thought of the idea that a personal envoy to Sudan could solve the whole problem of over 200,000 people being killed. Nancy for president. S/
"I never cease to be amazed at the capacity of the (increasingly Marxist) Left to wail and indulge in boundless histrionics over trivial and imagined transgressions by their opponents, while simply not responding to the slaughter of millions."
Ain't THAT the truth?!
The oft used phrase, "Never again!" is always, "Good 'til close" and that's about it.
Is anybody surprised that this nitwit has NOTHING to offer???
Pelosi is the featherbrain that interrupts the conversation with some irrelevant, mindless platitude--everybody is politely annoyed but speechless--and then the conversation continues without her.
For a flake like Nancy Pelosi to be a leader of the Democrat Party speaks volumes--and serves as a stark warning to the American people that the Democrat Party is not to be trusted with national security--or anything else.
Give Nancy a nasturtium and tell her to get back into the lotus position.
In September 2001 President Bush named former Sentator Danforth as envoy to the Sudan and charged him with the task of ending the Civil War. It took three and a half years but the effort finally succeeded -- no thanks to the Europeans, the UN, the Africans or in fact to the Islamist Government in Khartoum. To name an envoy for Darfur would be an even more difficult task -- with no help from Europe, the UN, the Africans or Khartoum. A resolution to the problem is needed now, not three years from now (the Pelosi option). But it will not happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.