Bomb, bomb, bomb--bomb, bomb Sudan!

Mark Helperin wants the US to threaten to strike hard at Sudan, and do so if necessary all by itself. Certainly without support from other Western nations, without UN Security Council authorization, and without any clear plan about what to do after the bombing. What sheer lunacy. And what a way to alienate even further just about the whole of the international "community" (quotes for a reason) and really, really, really piss off far too many more Muslims. One can almost feel a palpable lust for action:

[...]

The first requirement of a cordon sanitaire, however, would be to cut all air links, which would require carrier-based air strikes to destroy the Sudanese air force’s 51 combat aircraft, 25 transports, and 44 helicopters (all figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies); its fuel, munitions and maintenance facilities; and the few runways capable of supporting heavy transports and fighters. Were Chad to approve a small expeditionary force of America’s A-10 tactical-air-support planes, which it probably would, just a few of these could closely suppress remnant Sudanese armor and check any force of the janjaweed militia sufficiently concentrated to overcome local means of self-defense.

Moreover, none of this would prove necessary were the United States willing to go further and threaten or accomplish the destruction of the Sudanese regime’s means to power...

The precise targeting of a substantial portion of its 1,200 armored vehicles and 1,100 artillery pieces; its telecommunications exchanges and microwave towers; its dozen small naval vessels; its aircraft, runways, munitions, military headquarters, logistical stores, security ministries and presidential residences would be only a few days’ work for long-range bombers dispatched from remote bases, and the planes of two carrier task forces hastened to the Red Sea.

[...]

...only in the worst case would a military strike actually be necessary. One of the chief attractions of such an initiative is that, if properly directed, it could, one way or another, military strike or not, accomplish its aims...

...The threat itself would likely be enough. If not, then to carry it out in the present circumstances would be honorable, right and overdue...

In fact it's a threat that would not be believed. No US president would carry it out unilaterally in the forseeable future, and no Congress would approve. This kind of mad thinking is what makes many sometimes wonder about the mentality of some Americans. And the NY Times published the piece.

Not that things aren't deteriorating in Darfur, with China as Khartoum's godfather. I just don't see any easy or quick solution. Sometimes we just have to face the fact that it's a rotten old world--and try to muddle through to something a bit better, if possible.

Mark C.

Update: This is just about as realistic:

Canada calls on Sudan to stop attacking Darfur

Posted by markc at March 26, 2008 07:18 AM