Excellent post, Judith.

The reason people are blaming Bush is that they're fools.

The reason people have no solution is that there are only two, one correct but impossible and one possible but incorrect.

The correct but impossible solution is to get all the militarily worthless countries in the world, like Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, etc., to take action against Sudan under UN auspices. It's impossible because it won't happen. The UN has an execrable record on stopping genocide -- which is about its only conceivably useful function -- and we should do away with it.

The possible but incorrect solution is David Adesnik's: send in the Marines. It's incorrect because we have to focus our use of the military on interventions in which the U.S. has a national security interest, and not just a humanitarian interest, no matter how strong. Humanitarian needs are why we have other countries and why those countries have militaries.

And, finally, where were all these people at the rally when Saddam was butchering Iraqis en masse? And where are they now that Saddam has been stopped? Hmmm, let me ask Rabbi Eric Yoffie.

I also posted this at Winds of Change, and the usual sage discussion is going on.

Forgive me for being naive, but is it too much to expect so-called Third World powers from flexing some military muscle? Why does Judeo-Christian morality (with a view toward responsibility above guilt) have to be the prime mover in the debate over whether and how to intervene?

Outside of Russell Simmons (we must talk to the killers) and some woman that felt the need to bash W instead of speak of Darfur, most everyone else spoke of the requirement for force. The Evangelical leader was the must blunt about it - he stated that if the rest of the world did not want to help, we need to go in alone and put an end the the killing ourselves.

"most everyone else spoke of the requirement for force."

How much talking is it going to take to get that to happen? And unless we decide soon to go in unilaterally, we need to continue to pressure the right people.

I'm still reacting to the "Million Postcards to Bush."

i agree with your view on the whole darfur activist movement (of which I am a part, and I was proudly at the rally) to a large extent, so Id like to pose you this question: what is the other way to go about it and what are you doing about it? It felt like you were bashing people for bashing Bush, making an unproductive circle out of genuinely concerned citizens. I often feel the movement is engaging in feel-good ineffective action, so what should they be doing?

While I was writing it I felt like I was bashing the people who were bashing Bush. Part of that is cynicism and weariness with large rallies based on years of watching them and doing them.

I am glad this rally wasn't the usual parade of every fringey cause under the sun, though.

I think the only thing that will work is individual persuasion and diplomacy at the levels where these decisions are made. The lobbying of different countries and sit-ins in front of embassies is a start.

I call rallies like this "feel-good actions" because they absolve the participants from difficult problem-solving and promote sloganeering rather than targeted action. It's easy to send a million postcards to Bush. It's harder to strategize who the major players are, what their self-interests are, what will work, how to persuade them, etc. Most of this work can't be done by your average Joe who doesn't have that kind of influence, but average Joe can figure out who to talk to who might influence someone who might influence someone ..... I am thinking of a working group who meet to strategize and take on individual actions and report back and evaluate the results, etc. This is how major shifts in policy really happen, except for the kind of demonstrations I mentioned before.

What am I doing? You got me there. I haven't made this my particular fight, so I don't know enough to do what I am suggesting. Perhaps if it isn't my chosen fight I shouldn't criticize, but I think I had something useful to say.

I tend to favor paying for mercenaries. This has worked will in several other African countries. More here and here. Now if the working group decided that was the best option, for example, how would they go about convincing who, to make that happen?