| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Where the US does take action against jihadist activity, it is all too inclined to shoot itself in the foot by settling for half-measures, or backing down from a decisive -- and winnable -- confrontation: One will recall, for example, the "cease-fire" at Tora Bora which allowed bin Laden to escape, the unwillingness to neutralize the influence (and military power) of Muqtada al-Sadr early in the Iraq conflict, the acceptance of a toothless UN-brokered truce in last summer's Israel-Hizballah war, and so on.
Here, the Bush administration has squandered a chance first and foremost to save lives in the Darfur conflict, but also to hold to account the Sudanese government and its Arab backers. By doing so, it has also emboldened Khartoum in its activities on many fronts (southern Sudan, flareups in neighboring Chad), and handed the jihadists who consider Sudan a prime component of their cause (including bin Laden and al-Zawahiri) another opportunity to declare victory. Lastly, it has driven another nail in the coffin of the UN's authority to resolve disputes justly and associate any meaningful action with the hollow platitudes of the Security Council... though that's more nails than coffin at this point, anyway.
An update on this story from AFP:
WASHINGTON - In a major policy reversal, Washington’s special envoy for Darfur has confirmed the United States is backing away from demands for deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to the war-torn region of Sudan.
Andrew Natsios, President George W. Bush’s personal envoy to Sudan, said Washington and other Western governments were looking for an "alternate way" to deal with the violence which has left at least 200,000 people dead and 2.5 million homeless in Darfur.
It was the first public acknowledgement that the United States was reconsidering its backing for an August 31 UN Security Council resolution it sponsored demanding the deployment of some 20,000 UN peacekeepers to halt what Washington has described as genodice in Darfur.
Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir has rejected the United Nations demand and refused to meet with Natsios during a visit to Khartoum last week, the US envoy said in an interview with the National Holocaust Memorial which was posted on the memorial’s website on Friday.
Natsios said Beshir was furious over Bush’s renewal this week of US financial sanctions imposed on Sudan for its involvement in the Darfur violence and alleged support for international terrorists.
The UN adopted its resolution in July mandating the deployment of some UN peacekeepers to replace an under-funded African Union force in Darfur that has failed to halt the violence.
Beshir has instead insisted that the African Union mission, over which it has more influence, be reinforced.
Posted by Marisol at November 4, 2006 2:50 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Gee, why am I not surprised by this?
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 4, 2006 2:59 PM
'...Where the US does take action against jihadist activity, it is all too inclined to shoot itself in the foot by settling for half-measures, or backing down from a decisive -- and winnable -- confrontation: One will recall, for example, the "cease-fire" at Tora Bora which allowed bin Laden to escape, the unwillingness to neutralize the influence (and military power) of Muqtada al-Sadr early in the Iraq conflict, the acceptance of a toothless UN-brokered truce in last summer's Israel-Hizballah war, and so on...'
-----------------------------------------
Too painfully true!
Posted by: Court1 at November 4, 2006 3:21 PM
No one takes the USA's statements/declarations seriously anymore. Everyone knows American society is more concerned about immediate prosperity (do you like your new grill this summer?) than long-term national stability.
Americans think about the carrot in front of their mouth more than good, sound policies than might provide their children the same standard of living.
Come 50 years, as their children labour in the fields merely to meet the USG's yearly "Food Plan", they'll claim ignorance.
India Now = America 50 Years Hence
Enjoy the fun while you can.
Your kids won't.
rob@egoz.org
Posted by: egoz07 at November 4, 2006 3:59 PM
And to think that Bush is supposedly the "tough guy".. SCARY indeed..
Where is JFK when we need him?
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 4, 2006 4:13 PM
G.W. Bush has a "glass jaw". He cannot take critism! This is a wonderful example of the mess he has got us in. Iraq is not going to be a success becuase most of the population is arab muslim. Yet in Durfar and Southern Sudan we have very good chance of winning by just arming the locals and giving them a little air support. This is a wonderful example of the pure stupidy of G.W. He lacks the understanding of how to win. You don't have to always win by U.S. boots on the ground or with direct talks. You win by giving support, cash and military equipiment and training to the enemies of Islam. This is really true in Africa were still the open domination of Islam has yet to take root in many areas. We must check the advance of Islam and esp. Arabic Arabian backed Islam.
I am sick of others taking the heat for G.W. It is HIS failure and HIS alone. He is in command and the buck stops there. It sickens me that he NEVER takes any responsibility for HIS failures. He never attempts for FIX his failures. Why are the Republicans going to lose this election (or come close)? Why are third world dictators kicking us around? Why is Islam on the advance and feels confidence?
G.W. is a loser but much worse he is a coward.
at November 4, 2006 5:45 PM
Durfar = Darfur
I blame Israel for this mistatement! Allah Akbar!
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 4, 2006 5:46 PM
I cannot begin to express the disappointment I feel in the president on this issue. We should push harder for sanctions against Sudan and peacekeepers in the Darfur. No more excuses.
Posted by: No More Spin at November 4, 2006 6:36 PM
Is GWBush really against terrorism? Really against Islamic jihad? Is he on the other side opposing the Islamofascists? If so, why this soft policy on Sudan? Why is Condoleeza Buckwheat or Burghul or Arroz or Riso or whatever urging the Israeli govt to release from jail one Marwan Barghouti, convicted of five counts of murder?? Barghouti did not do the dirty work himself, to be sure. Rather, he was one of yasser a's money couriers, supplying funds to Fatah terrorists [he was a Fatah leader] for the purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks. Yet Condi Riso wants Barghouti out of jail.
Posted by: Eliyahu at November 7, 2006 6:55 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)