Complications

Until now it seems that Saudi Arabia, publicly at least, has stayed on the sidelines of the Iraq War. As a result of the support that Shiite groups receive from Iran, Sunni Saudi Arabia has given serious consideration to aiding the Sunni elements of the Iraqi Civil War, particularly if the United States were to withdraw. In this fascinating piece of opinion from Nawaf Obaid, a personal national security advisor to Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Turki al-Faisal, he hypothesizes several courses of action that Saudi Arabia may take in order to protect the Sunnis of Iraq. On certain topics he goes beyond hypothesizing, stating: "Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

Surprisingly he even supposes that: "finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere." That seems an unlikely course of action but is an interesting idea. Do the opinions expressed in the piece actually have to be considered viable options by the Saud clan, or simply have to appear to be viable options. The opinions will surely come across the desks of the Iranian decision makers and maybe simply an attempt by the so-far quite Saudis to exercise some regional muscle. Interestingly the piece comes following a stop in Saudi Arabia by Dick Cheney. Could this simply be part of the Administrations plan to engage other regional players in the Iraq crisis, albeit in a rather unconventional way. The piece certainly strikes a belligerent tone, it will be interesting to watch what may come of this.

Bob Gates

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for bringing this to my attention:

"I sat in the Situation Room in secret meetings for nearly twenty years under five Presidents, and all I can say is that some awfully crazy schemes might well have been approved had everyone present not known and expected hard questions, debate, and criticism from the Hill. And when, on a few occasions, Congress was kept in the dark, and such schemes did proceed, it was nearly always to the lasting regret of the Presidents involved. Working with the Congress was never easy for Presidents, but then, under the Constitution, it wasn't supposed to be. I saw too many in the White House forget that," - Bob Gates, from his 1996 memoir, "From the Shadows."

Darfur

Between April and July of 1994 an estimated 800,000 to 1,070,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred in Rwanda by extremist Hutu groups. Despite intelligence of the impending disaster before the killing began, and international news media coverage of the violence, most of the international community including France, Belgium, Germany, the U.K., and the United States declined to intervene. Bill Clinton characterized his inaction as the "biggest regret of my administration."

The Rwandan conflict was not only committed by non-state actors, there is ample evidence that the killing was well organized, by the time the killing started, the militia in Rwanda was 30,000 strong, some militia members were able to acquire guns by completing requisition forms. According to Linda Melvern, in Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwanda Genocide and the International Community, convicted war criminal Rwandan Prime Minister Kambanda, revealed in his testimony before the ICTR, that the genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings and that "one cabinet minister said she was personally in favor of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over."

The United Nations has shown itself to be ineffectual in dealing with international/intranational conflict resolution. The United States should use its power to build consensus and bring parties into a coalition to stop genocide such as occurred in Rwanda. Unfortunately Bill Clinton's administration and Congress was reeling from the failure of its mission in Somalia that had occurred only months earlier in late 1993. The failures of that endeavor, however worthy it may have been, distracted the administration, congress, and the people of the United States from intervening in Rwanda.

Now we have a similar situation in Darfur. The United Nations is still ineffectual and unable to intervene in Darfur, the United States is reeling from the failure of its mission in Iraq and other countries who are in a position to take a leadership role will not without direction, financially and physically, from the United States. Estimated deaths in Darfur range from 50,000 to 400,000, with consensus hovering around the latter number. Once again, the Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided arms and assistance and has participated in joint attacks with the Janjaweed. The United States has declared that genocide has taken place, but the United Nations continues not to do so.

Now from the United Nations, comes this call from Kofi Annan, "a high-level international meeting later this week to discuss the peacekeeping crisis in Sudan's Darfur...The UN has offered $77m to help the AU - but needs Sudan's approval to change the structure of the force...The UN Security Council has passed a resolution for 20,000 troops to be sent to Darfur but Sudan has refused to let the UN take control, saying that would infringe its sovereignty."

A nation loses its right to sovereignty once it cannot provide basic security for its citizens, and certainly relinquishes any claim to sovereignty once it supports groups that engage in ethnic cleansing within its borders. Not intervening in Sudan because of its governments claim to sovereignty is a farce. I do not presume to know the ability of the United States military, but it seems that the quagmire of Iraq and the development of a plan to rectify the situation drains all available resources, military and civilian. The misadventure, and the fact that it does not appear to be ending in the near-future, mean that most likely nothing will be done for Darfur unless another country takes the lead.

Kerry's Remarks

Uwe Reinhardt of the Washington Post makes several interesting comments regarding the ill-timed and ill-delivered joke made by John Kerry regarding those in the U.S. military.