One thing that could be done would be to send a few thousand troops to seize the southern Sudan and Darfur. For by now it should be clear that the Arabs of the north have no intention of allowing the southern, black African Sudanese to hold a referendum on independence. The Arabs will never allow the black Africans of the south, Christians and animists, to do that. They will never allow them to leave and take with them the oil that is under their lands. Nor will they allow back into Darfur from Chad the million or more Muslim, but black African, refugees driven out when 400,000 of their fellow black Africans were murdered by the Arab quasi-governmental militias, the Janjaweed. (That word has not been in the news of late, but don't forget it quite so quickly.)
The effect of such an act would be spectacular. Black African Christians all over the Continent, now reeling from the effects of Saudi and Libyan money, would be heartened. (One small example of the effects of that money: Khaddafy was allowed to buy sound systems for all the mosques in Lome, in Togo, by buying off the ruler of Togo with a Lamborghini and other expensive trifles. The azan is now heard everywhere in Lome, and more mosques are going up, and the Christian Togolese are full of justified anxiety.)
The U.N., controlled by the Arabs, could not come out clearly against this move, for the world's newspapers would be full of pictures of grateful black Africans surrounding their saviors from the Arab Muslims - those American soldiers. The E.U. would, for once, have to remain silent. And the Arab League? Ah, how could the Arab League convince the world that the Arabs of Khartoum had a divine right to the oil of the south, and to rule over Black Africans forever? It would be a drawing of a line to the Arabs, who see the Sudan as merely an agricultural colony for themselves, and as a stepping-stone for Egypt to impose its will, and to Islamize from within, the country just to the Sudan's south, for more than 1400 years the famously Christian kingdom of Ethiopia. In the wars over water to come, Egypt sees itself as owning the Nile, and wants to threaten Ethiopia, to prevent it from diverting any of the Nile's headwaters - as Ethiopia has every right to do. And part of that long-term strategy, about which the American government appears to know nothing, is to make sure that the Sudan, all of the Sudan, is thoroughly Islamized and arabized, with the blacks reduced to a state of complete penury and hopeless dependence. The American military could, if the American government would give the word, with no trouble at all wipe out the Sudanese airforce, and take - possibly from aircraft carriers or from bases in Ethiopia - both the southern Sudan and Darfur, and do so very carefully, as a "humanitarian" mission alone. It's an important thing to consider.
And what else? Well, where's the propaganda war? It doesn't appear to exist. The Arabic-language radio stations set up by the Bush Administration were, trustingly, and idiotically, put into the hands of Muslim Arabs. They should have been put into the hands of non-Muslim native speakers of Arabic, perhaps advised as well by apostates from Islam, who would know what kind of programming would be most unsettling in its effect. Just look at what Father Boutros, the Copt, on his own, manages to do. During the Cold War very intelligent refugees from Communist countries, some of them former Communists, worked at Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe. We did not then turn those radio stations over to "moderate" Communists, "Communists we could trust." The same should apply now.
And then, radio and television should beam in programs where, for example, Wafa Sultan might have her own program. She might invite guests to discuss, among other topics, how Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism (such a program should be beamed, in English, right into Pakistan, right into Bangladesh). Or another topic might be "Islam and Economic Development," where many things might be pointed out that, because they are true, so obviously true, would be hard to discredit. Imagine a program, for example, in which speakers discussed the failure of Muslim states, including those oil states that have received more than twelve trillion dollars since 1973 alone, to create modern economies.
Imagine the effect on listeners if they heard people trained in economics describe those failures, describe that continued reliance on armies of foreign wage-slaves, and on how everything the Saudis had tried - that great and expensive experiment in agriculture, those "Economic Cities," even that King Abdullah University - have failed, or will fail, and everyone in the Middle East knows it. They know that the only wealth that Muslim states have is either that from oil and gas, which no one did anything to merit. For no work and no entrepreneurial flair was necessary to receive such wealth, or it comes from Infidels who have poured tens of billions, so foolishly, into the oil-poor Muslim states, instead of telling those states to ask their Muslim brothers, their fabulously rich fellow members of the Umma, to take care of them.
And imagine if it were repeatedly pointed out that all Muslim states have failed, save those - such as Turkey, Tunisia, Kazakhstan - where Islam has been, over many decades, systematically constrained. And suppose further, and most important of all, if such radio and television programs explored honestly the teachings of Islam, in the Qur'an and, especially, in the Sunnah - which reflects the manners and customs of 7th century Arabs but, in Islam, is to be faithfully followed by all Muslims, including the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs, and who are living today, and not in the seventh century.
And imagine if it were repeatedly pointed out that all Muslim states have failed, save those - such as Turkey, Tunisia, Kazakhstan - where Islam has been, over many decades, systematically constrained.
It's funny though how Recep Erdog-Arab and his followers, however, have been doing everything they can to push their oil-poor native country towards becoming less like a country where there is economic activity to speak of and more like Somalia... Proof that nothing, aside from mosques, can survive the devastating impact of allowing mahoundianism to fully blossom anywhere.
After 9/11, any leader in the West no longer gets a pass for being ignorant of Islam, its eternal doctrines of subjugation, or history and the truth of what Islam has done especially to subjugated populations. That America is not engaging in a massive propaganda campaign using all of its resources to educate its own citizens and those of the world about the true danger of Islam to individuals and to entire societies is not only inexcusable but frankly evil.
Interesting suggestion, Hugh. One you've made before if I'm not mistaken. Would have the effect of creating an us versus them situation with "them" being Muslims. Of course, the Muslim world would howl and whine and tell lies but that would be nothing new. Same old same old, eh? But once there we'd have to stay there for a very long time or slaughter would ensue when we left and more nation-building would have to be engaged in while we're there. Still, there's merit in your idea, though there's no chance of it occurring as long as the present occupant of the Oval Office is in charge, sycophantic as he is towards the Islamic world. Let's face it, the worse the thugs, ordinarily the more Obama caves (and bows).
Well, you'd at least have Angelina Jolie on your side here. Why just the other day she criticized Obama for doing nothing about Darfur. Hmmm. A Jolie type supporting an American military endeavor would itself be a phenomenon to relish. And I think you're correct that it would function as a great inspiration to black African Christians everywhere.
I am always seeking ways to persuade those who, for various reasons, strike an attitude, or rather, attitudinize, when it comes to Islam. Such people are often described at this website -- not by me but by others -- as "leftists" or the MSM, or some such. I am always trying to enlarge the numbers of those who are willing to stop, examine the texts and tenets of Islam, study a bit about the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation (past and very much present) of non-Muslim lands and peoples, and instead of being repelled by fiery right-wing rhetoric that often veers quickly off the subject of Islam into a whole host of other grievances and resentments, will stay, will listen, will hear the voice of reason, and decide that, you know, perhaps there really is something about Islam that is worrisome, and I really ought to find out about it, and proceed, for example at this website (the only one to offer a relentless criticism of the Bush Administration as well as of the Obama Administration), to stop, read, re-visit, take some of it in, and slowly begin to make better sense of things.
Darfur has dropped off the national radar...and there is no stomach in America for new foreign adventures, either in the Administration or society at large....so your advocacy is academic. Furthermore, even in the event there WAS a national consensus for intervening in Sudan, be careful what you wish for; if recent history is any guide, wresting control of these regions would be much easier than holding them. We wouldn't want to find ourselves in the position of either facing another long, protracted conflict...or just as bad, facilitating independence for these regions - disengaging in a timely manner - and then watching from the sidelines as a humanitarian disaster unfolds when the Sudanese and their Arab backers orchestrate the inevitable reconquista.
I find it strange and incongruous that someone who has insisted repeatedly over a period of years we should not squander blood and treasure in the Islamic realm and who is not at all interested in pursuing the current wars we are fighting...is advocating such a bold, new adventure.
"...so your advocacy is academic."
It is a venture among people who are, at least in the south, clearly not Muslim and so not meretricious, and not phonily friendly as long as they want something out of us. It is a venture that would not require hundreds of thousands of troops, but a mere handful, a few thousand, supplemented by air attacks to destroy the Sudanese airforce and terrify its government into immediate paralysis.
The oil of the Sudan is all in the south, and there are potential resources, not necessarily oil, in Darfur. These are places that can pay for themslves. The people of Darfur may be among the non-Arab Muslmis most immediately receptive to hearing about Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism, and some may well be willing not only to listen to that, but to accept missionary activites especially if they are conducted by fellow black Africans, possibly even from the southern Sudan.
The symbolic value, to Christians all over sub-Saharan Africa, and to th0ose who are wavering between Islam and Christianity, will be very great.
The symbolic value, as the black Africans observe the fury of the Arabs, as any mask is ripped off, and as the members of the Arab League show themselves intent on reasserting control over the people and regions now being protected by the Americans and other NATO forces, may split the Arabs from the black Africans, Christian and Muslim, as well.
There is liyylr likelihood of the Americans having to commit large numbers of forces. The Janjaweed will be terrified after the first unequal encounter. What was it that was said when the Mad Mahdi was being fought? "We have the Gatling gun, and they have not." Well, we have planes, drones, everything you want, and they have not. End of story.
My advocacy is exactly that -- advocacy. I have repeated it endlessly. I think it makes sense, and I think there are those -- I know there are those among Sudanese in exile who have written to me -- who will recognize this as a point of purchase, and an act which will clearly show, as we leave Iraq and, I hope, Afghanistan, that we have no intention of not using force where it can most intelligently be applied. And such a venture, undertaken now, just might concentrate twelver-shi'a minds, not all of them necessarily looking forward, as Ahmedinajad is, to the impending end of everything.
"...so your advocacy is academic."
But that kind of unimaginative and sour response does nothing to prompt reflection on the part of those who might read, or have their attention brought, to this kind of suggestion. No doubt my other suggestions, about the kind of propaganda war that might be waged, could also -- since there are no signs that such a propaganda war is to be waged -- be airily dismissed as "academic."
But if we are never to make suggestions, and lay out our reasoning, if we are always to refrain based on a kind of hopelessness that anything will ever be listened to or acted on, then nothing at all will be achieved. There are those who, in Western Europe, recognize the problem of Islam but keep saying "but what can we do?" and assume that their own lack of imagination and cunning means that nothing can be done.
That attitude is a mistake.
Your final point is well made and well taken; Churchill advocated policies in the mid 30s that had no chance of being adopted at the time, but were important for laying the groundwork for future policy.
Still, there are several problems with the specifics:
1) While the south IS predominantly Christian, Darfur is not. Have you considered the very real possibility that a US presence on the ground there, while initially being welcomed by the locals, may eventually engender resentment, extremism, and armed opposition, i.e., a new theater to bleed America?
2) We have the "Gatling gun" in Afghanistan, our opponents do not, and yet things are not going particularly well.
3) An invasion of Darfur and south Sudan would mean America is at least temporarily assuming responsibilities for these regions. Insufficient manpower could easily lead to a lawless environment and the necessity for mission creep.
4) My concern is that - while you're eager for such an intervention, your expectation is based on a limited duration. Unless we're committed to the long haul, we may be visiting eventual tragedy on the very people we're trying to help.
Sorry Hugh, but the US is not in any position politically or financially to assume any new large commitments overseas. This is reality.
Quote: The U.N., controlled by the Arabs, could not come out clearly against this move, for the world's newspapers would be full of pictures of grateful black Africans surrounding their saviors from the Arab Muslims - those American soldiers.
This will indeed be a step too far Pres Obama.
It will be a miracle if it happens under the Obama administration.
Hugh,
This idea has merit, if you look at the state of Israel it worked because it could defend itself, and the actions of the Muslims themselves necessitated the need of a Jewish state due to the grotesque treatment of Jews all over the Islamic world (and elsewhere), which caused them to immigrate to Israel in the first place. For those that worry this would cause the world to become more polarized, I say that it is already polarized. There are historical forces unleashed which will have a will of their own. Minority Christians of the Middle East should be armed, and protected by their own states, and given freedoms by their own central governments. I think there should be a push for an Assyrian state as well, which Christians from fragile vulnerable communities could flee to seeking asylum and religious freedom. I don't know if Christians from North Africa would immigrate there, but surely there would be political will for Christians, not only in Darfur, but in other places as well. We all know how Muslims inflate their numbers, I'm betting there are way more Christians in the Middle East than are accounted for in by central governments. Perhaps there would be will for a Coptic state, possibly a North African Christian state, and Darfur? The only thing needed is the political will for freedom, and backing/weapons from the west.
Comparing this idea with Afghanistan is false, because in Afghanistan we are seen as infidels, and occupiers, not allies helping them forge free societies, so we have little co-operation. Which leads me to the next point, seems most Muslims are ideologically against establishing western style democracies in the Middle East. Seems since they are here, and living in liberal western democracies they should also support them ideologically from the west as well. I dare say if there was loud vociferous support for our efforts in the Middle East from western Muslims perhaps many would have different attitudes about what we are doing in the Middle East, but also with integrating Islam into our societies too. Muslims for the most part by their own actions and words have proven that they don't support our style of freedom of thought and conscious. We aren't seen as bringers of freedom in our Wilsonian reconstruction efforts, we are seen as invaders and killers by Muslims here and abroad.
I dare say, we would get eager support from Assyrian Christians, Christians/Animists in Dufar, and Christians of North Africa, because they would be fighting for their own freedom, and we wouldn't be seen as invaders. If we advocate freedom, we should at least think about this, because it is the right thing to do. Muslims have already proven themselves for what they are.
Hugh:
Christian missionaries in Darfur tend to be killed. But you are right in that Darfurians are amenable to influence: they wonder why fellow Muslims are killing them, for a start: time to look at the religion again, instead of following blindly?
We might have had the Maxim when the Mahdi didn't, but thanks to oil money the Sudan government has practically any weapon it wants.
The Arab world might look askance at certain tactics of Khartoum, but they are deeply involved financially with Sudan.
And so are the Chinese. Any support of the south and west (and east, also mistreated by Khartoum) is likely to interfere with oil production.
For these three reasons, just for a start, it is probable that we missed our chance. The trouble is, our best chance coincided with oil discoveries and early extraction in Sudan: Americans would have screamed "Blood for oil!" or some such thing and prevented help getting to the southerners. (Anti-Americanism is such an impediment to America doing good in the world.)
PS:
The south Sudanese are not impressed by Obama and had more repect for Bush, who at least facilitated US Christian assistance to south Sudan. I think they are quite aware Obama will do nothing for them.
Many Sudanese Muslims like Obama. Now why could that be?
If you can get Scottie Simon to agree, then something may actually happen. If Iraq was just about Oil, would not the Oil in Sudan rate the same billing?
I think the "Human Rights" movement needs a Darfur because it empowers them. Military action is against their basic philosophy and would actually put them out of Business. Human rights always comes up heads no matter the fall of the coin.
Hugh is preaching to a choir that is growing in numbers but
PG is correct about the "Blood for Oil". The American left would scream it 24/7. But I do not think that Obama will do anything to assist what might be perceived as a form of
"Christian Resistance" to the Arabs or Muslims there. There is and always has been a deep apathy on behalf of blacks in America about their Christian brothers and sisters under
persecution in Africa. This is because white people are not the perpatrators. Ironically, 99%+ of foreign missionaries in the region are white. Blacks also don't care about Shariah Law allowing slavery. Until somobody can change the perception and mindset about this there will be no change.
Saving the Black Africans of the southern Sudan and Darfur from rape, pillage, torture, forced starvation, and murder -- that have been the lot of the Christians and animists in the south for more than a quarter-century, and of the black African Muslims in Darfur for a half-dozen years, at the hands of Muslim Arabs (or those who consider themselves such), supported by all other Muslim Arabs -- would do more to immunize the black populations of North America and Western Europe from targetted campaigns of Da'wa than anything else that could possibly be done.
There are a dozen good reasons, each by itself convincing, why the Americans should seize the southern Sudan. Already the news has reached the outside world of the killings starting up again in the southern Sudan, as the time for that "referendum on independence" approaches -- for now, the northern Arabs appear to be disguising their intervention as "internecine" warfare among the various tribes, but you can be sure that the Muslim Arabs are encouraging others to cause, to stir up, and to act on, trouble, hoping to cause internecine warfare among the Christians and animists, and then to step in to "bring peace." And if the southern Sudan can be depicted as as a place of interminable and inevitable violence, then the northern Arabs can claim the "conditions are not right for a referendum" or, alternatively, that "conditions have changed and in order to keep the peace forever, the idea of a referendum must be scrapped."
Keep watching the Arabs in the north. See what they say. See what, through agents and deployment of rewards, they get others to do. See what they do themselves.
It would be helpful if words were more carefully chosen. To 'seize' "Southern Sudan" is seriously unhelpful terminology. The Sudanese Christians that I work with are in no way naive when discussing Islam. They understand only too well the meaning of concepts such as fitna, hudna and jihad etc. All of them have lived to tell the tale. And they work closely with people on the ground in the south of their beloved country. My understanding is:
Tribal conflict is perennial. This seems to be a trait of Africans that is usually taken in stride, since it has rarely amounted to genocide. The conflict with the North is not tribal. It is resistance to that genocide which would (continue) to take place if the South laid down its arms. I have footage of young Christian men sitting in church nestling AK47's taken from the Janjaweed. They are prepared to use them (and often do). This, they say, is the language that the enemy understands. This is life.
Southern Sudan is not reliant on oil, although some return from its exploitation by the North and China would be 'nice'. The North needs that oil$ to finance its terror campaigns and its 'legitimate' military. Genocide is expensive...
Southern Sudan holds to the same sentiment as the south of Nigeria - the West simply doesn't give a damn. Ethiopia probably concurs, as would Congo (where the Rwandan Hutu animals have reigned supreme since fleeing their own handiwork at home). Again, silence from the West.
What struck me was the incredible esteem with which the black African non-Muslim world held the United States of America. But is this going to be past tense? Will black Africa learn to sneer at the mention of America as so many now seem to do at the mention of the UN? Ask the Sudanese about Kofi Anan. They just smile, with a look that reminds me of someone who is pleased to have avoided stepping on that over-sized dog doo-doo. Is Barack Obama heading down the same path, with never-ending 'Never Again's' and little else? This is what the Sudanese wonder, and worry about. If Bashir et al perceive weakness in Obama, they will resume 'hostilities' ie genocide, with a renewed vigour. But if Bashir even suspects that US drones are 'just over the horizon', always watching, he will think twice.
As one young battle-scarred Christian warrior said to me, with a very big smile on his face: 'They are not brave. When we shoot back we know that we must run after them, to catch some or kill some. Then they know that we will fight and they will die. They do not want to die and we do not want to kill. This is our peace.'
Thank you, Hugh. This is good stuff.