Not bad. Now if only she'd stop her hysterical writing on HIV-AIDS in Africa, she'd be great.

On the "everyone is black" point: This is true but misses the point. It doesn't matter what the groups' actual ethnicities are. So long as they identify as "black" or "Arab" the "ethnic" divisions remain, even if "ethnic" always needs to be placed in quotes.

The distinction between Hutus and Tutsis was almost equally arbitrary but that didn't stop what happened or make the distinction any less meaningful. In fact, following up on the Rwanda point, would Wax (or you Col) deny that was a genocide? It was a conflict that was political at base, but I contend that when government-sponsored militias slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians, even to intimidate the poopulace against a local rebellion, the reason for doing so is meaningless. As long as they would be willing to wipe out the population, even for political purposes, it is genocide, and there is nothing hysterical about using that term.

Um, "poopulace" was a rather embarassing error there...

Anon-
'On the "everyone is black" point: This is true but misses the point. It doesn't matter what the groups' actual ethnicities are. So long as they identify as "black" or "Arab" the "ethnic" divisions remain, even if "ethnic" always needs to be placed in quotes.'

I think it matters when the conflict is being portrayed as 'arab against black' racism. No one is questioning the ethnic dimension.

I don't see Rwanda as even remotely similar to Darfur in terms of how/why the killing is done. In Rwanda, there was an orchestrated killing of one ethnic group by another, predated by racist propaganda, with the intent of killing all or as many as possible of the Tutsis and finishing them off as factor in Rwandan life for good, all of it systematically done within a matter of weeks.

In Darfur it is much more blurred, much less organized and much less killing. People are randomly butchered because they belong to the wrong group/tribe, to wreak havoc and cause an ethnic cleansing, yes. But they are not systematically hunted down and murdered as individuals, and extermination is not the overall goal of the government/militia campaign (even if it were to be the result, which is highly unlikely).

Still, Darfur could (and I think should) be called a genocide. Look at how the the word has been used, both in the media and legally, after Yugoslavia. No-one there had the intent to annihilate the other groups. But there were plenty of local racist massacres (such as Srebrenica) that formed part of a larger ethnic cleansing (which, on the other hand, was intentional).

So people speak of genocide(s) or genocidal crimes in the Yugoslav wars, and right they are. So I figure Darfur is similar to that kind of genocidal warfare, but not to Rwanda, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide or other such systematic extermination campaigns.

(I think Yehuda Bauer wrote about that distinction in _The Holocaust in Historical Perspective_, but with other examples. And I think I remember thinking that he made an interesting argument in an otherwise dull book.)

Lazy Anon:

I mean that endearingly of course. On the substance, to be blunt you entirely miss the point.

On the "everyone is black" point: This is true but misses the point. It doesn't matter what the groups' actual ethnicities are. So long as they identify as "black" or "Arab" the "ethnic" divisions remain, even if "ethnic" always needs to be placed in quotes.

I rather disagree, in this instance not "actual ethnicities" but physical realities>/b> are the important facts to convey.

The "actual ethnicities" (in this instance they are what they say they are, self definition and all that), but the mistaken imagery that Westerners have gotten from the rather stupid and easy use of "African" versus "Arab" (the former meaningless as the 'Arabs' are as African as the 'Africans' - it's a mealy mouthed way of avoiding saying black, and incorrectly and I think prejudicially and insidiously implies the Arabs are not native to the area). As you can see from perusing the online world's commentary, in English, a good number of people think this is "black" people versus invading Saudi looking Arabs.

The image is entirely false and wildly distorts the actual situation.

As such, the emphasis on the physical reality is useful and important. The question is not whether there is a conflict (clearly there is) but conveying an accurate view of said conflict. Taking your note: “The distinction between Hutus and Tutsis was almost equally arbitrary but that didn't stop what happened or make the distinction any less meaningful.”

Indeed, but the issue at hand is not the meaningfulness of the Arab versus non-Arab divide, but under

In fact, following up on the Rwanda point, would Wax (or you Col) deny that was a genocide?

Rwanda or Dar Fur?

Rwanda was a fair case for genocide.

Dar Fur is not.

It was a conflict that was political at base, but I contend that when government-sponsored militias slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians, even to intimidate the populace against a local rebellion, the reason for doing so is meaningless. As long as they would be willing to wipe out the population, even for political purposes, it is genocide, and there is nothing hysterical about using that term.

Contend as you will, Dar Fur doesn’t strike me as meeting a reasonable meaning of genocide. I like such terms to have meaning, not be bandied about for their scare value. Dar Fur is no more genocide than Bosnia was.

The Sudanese who are doing the killing identify themselves as Arabs. In their own words, they do not consider themselves to be black

...the janjaweed women known as Hakama, a kind of Greek chorus who sing and encourage their warrior men during raids on villages, broke into song when they saw the dead in the mosque: The blood of the blacks runs like water, we take their goods and we chase them from our area and our cattle will be in their land. The power of al-Bashir belongs to the Arabs, and we will kill you until the end, you blacks, we have killed your God."

The chief said that the Arab women also racially insulted women from the village: "You are gorillas, you are black, and you are badly dressed."

Apparently, they would like these 'ethnic' divisions to continue.

In any case, we can blather about Arabs vs. blacks all we want, it's not going to change anything. The international community has shown many times that they don't care about stopping genocide. The only solution is for the Sudanese to hire a private security force to defend themselves. The Boston Globe is suggesting that, and I think it's a great idea.

Hilarious...

One day I am going to learn not to reply to idiocy.

But for the moment....

The Sudanese who are doing the killing identify themselves as Arabs. In their own words, they do not consider themselves to be black

And this is relevant to what?

(Never mind the article in question is rather crappy reporting; "African chief" - they're Fur, Zaghaoua, Baggara etc - bloody illiterate reporters)

There is no question that there is ethnic violence, warfare, cleansing and barbarity. The physical reality, however, is the two sides are equally "black."

The only solution is for the Sudanese to hire a private security force to defend themselves

"The Sudanese"?

"hire"?

"private security force"?

That is one of the stupidest fucking things I have read in years.

Let's take this by the numbers.

First, for the subliterate out there, that's an opinion piece (by a fellow at Harvard), not "The Boston Globe"'s position. One should be able to dimly discern the difference.

Not that this excuses the sheer idiocy of either the writer or the editors for publishing the illiterate idiotic dreck.

Primo, the very idea presumes the Fur, the Zaghaoua and others have money to hire "private security" - but leaving aside the factual issue of money, the proposition also forgets that there are two sides here - the Fur and the Zaghaoua have their own militias, and indeed private armies.

Much of the conflict is about Fur and Zaghaoua groups being pissed off with the central government.

The majority is about drought, desertification and settled versus nomad conflict.

Anyone who looks at the entire Sahel can see the same thing happening as the Sahara pushes south.

But let's go back to the idiotic, the droolingly idiotic idea of hiring - lord knows with what fucking money - outside "private" security forces.

The idea is stunningly dumb. Stunningly. (almost as idiotic as the knee jerking neanderthal American conservo-ideologue idiots' anti-UN blithering in the thread to your own ignorant whanking commentary, which is only interesting ) Protecting the entire swath of the lands of the Fur and Zaghaoua, which is thousands of square kilometers requires manpower. Thousands of men (or women I suppose) manpower.

It is hardly rational for anyone with the merest passing knowledge of the area to think "hiring" a security force is a possible.

But let me not neglect the op ed by the idiot from Harvard (whose article seems to be largely concoted to prove one can be a shallow idiot and be at Harvard, and pimp corrupt blithering from rent-a-killer firms).

So Mr Black of Blackwater wants to sell the expensive idea of his firm 'bolstering' the African Union mission:
But according to J. Cofer Black, vice chairman of the private security firm Blackwater, there is another option that ought to be on the table: an organization that could commit significant resources and expertise to bolster the African Union peacekeepers and provide emergency support to their flagging mission.

Brilliant idea.....

No not really, dumb fucking idea, but I can't hold it against Blackwater for trying to get paid. Above all since the trough of Iraq (where they have hardly been either brilliant or low cost) is going to dry up as the American mission fails.

The idiot pimp writes "Private military companies have had a hard time convincing the international community that privatizing peacekeeping would be as good for Darfur, and for the rest of the world, as for their industry. In part that's because of the mixed reputation their work in Iraq has earned them ....."

Indeed, mixed reputation, like killing lots of innocent civilians, being above the law, stunningly expensive....

There is nothing really recommending the idea (of course I rather doubt the French who have actual substantial interest in the area would go for it) other than ignorance of the region.

One would be far better off arming the Zaghaoua and Fur from Tchad under plausible deniability (or paying off South Africa to send more forces, growth industry for them).

Alright, this is anon from before, figure it might be nice to give myself a moniker. You can call me Asher.

The "actual ethnicities" (in this instance they are what they say they are, self definition and all that), but the mistaken imagery that Westerners have gotten from the rather stupid and easy use of "African" versus "Arab" (the former meaningless as the 'Arabs' are as African as the 'Africans' - it's a mealy mouthed way of avoiding saying black, and incorrectly and I think prejudicially and insidiously implies the Arabs are not native to the area). As you can see from perusing the online world's commentary, in English, a good number of people think this is "black" people versus invading Saudi looking Arabs.
I haven't heard "African", but yes "black" has been used, and at least some of the time to stir up feelings in favor of one side. I think Kristof (who's probably written more about this than anyone) uses "people of Darfur" or something a little more on the neutral side. Point remains, it's not news that terminology is used to bring people to one side of the debate. In any event, what term would you have them use?

Rwanda was a fair case for genocide.
Dar Fur is not.
...
Contend as you will, Dar Fur doesn’t strike me as meeting a reasonable meaning of genocide. I like such terms to have meaning, not be bandied about for their scare value. Dar Fur is no more genocide than Bosnia was.

I would say Bosnia was genocide as well, but the situ in Darfur is somewhere between the two.

I dig the point about meaning but it seems you are being excessively conservative, and "bandied about" is not a proper assessment of the situation. Do you think the problem of definition here hinges on the numbers or the intent? How many genocides would you say there have been? In my view even if the motivation is political, it can still be genocide.

Well, at least I have brow beaten one Anon to indulge me in a handle.

As to the question:
I haven't heard "African", but yes "black" has been used, and at least some of the time to stir up feelings in favor of one side.

In short, used as agitprop.

I have a natural dislike for propaganda.

I think Kristof (who's probably written more about this than anyone) uses "people of Darfur" or something a little more on the neutral side. Point remains, it's not news that terminology is used to bring people to one side of the debate. In any event, what term would you have them use?

Well, I would suggest Darfurians or something slightly more melodious. Or Fur, even if it lumps the Zaghaoua and others in.

Using a terminology that falsely implies a racialisation that doesn't exist (not in the terms as imagine in the US, with its own racial history), and that tends to build into an emmergant anti-Arab bigotry rather irritates me. I find it dishonest and unhelpful (never mind the hidden bigotry that would have it that the "Africans" are not "real Muslims" - generally in the sense of constrasting with 'evil Arabs' although the prejudice goes the other way as well).

As to the usage of the word genocide, well, I would not call Bosnia genocide. It cheapens the word. Genocide is a heavy word that should mean something like what Hitler did, or what the Khmer Rouge achieved.

I dislike cheapening of words for the momentary political value.

The perfectly good term ethnic cleansing exists. Use it.

Bandying about the term "genocide" is worse than foolish: it's dangerous. People identify themselves as members of different "groups" (tribes, ethnicities, religious groups, whatever) of all sorts in civil wars: this is how people identify which side they belong to. After that, people kill each other, usually those belonging to the "wrong" tribes--after all, this is what warfare is all about. If, as Anon-Asher suggests, intending to kill members of the wrong "tribe" is sufficient to label something a genocide, then virtually every civil war has to count as some form of genocide. (and of course, in this century, almost every one of them has been called genocide in some form.)

I tend to think civil wars get out of hand because one side or the other thinks they can successfully draw outside powers into conflict on their behalf--again, true in almost every civil war this century. Overbroad generalizations about what constitutes "genocide" plays nicely into this sort of irresponsible thinking, in my view.

Hmm, I'm getting senile about which century this is...I should have clarified that I meant 20-21st centuries in the previous comment by "this century."

I am not going to pretend I am an expert on Dar Fur. In fact I don't know except what I read in the press. So someone tell me I am understanding the issue right.

There are two groups fighting each other. One seems to have a military advantage over the other and has committed the more atrocities, which is the nomadic group, being labeled in the press as "arab" though they are an African tribe (called Zaghouawa?) with militia called the "janjaweed" which seem to get Sudanese government sponsorship (?) or are they both not getting Sudanese sponsorship? The otehr group is more sedentary, is called the Fur, and is not being helped by the Sudanese government.

The article is really kind of confusing as it does not explain which political groups are which tribes. Are the Fur associated with Hassan al Turabi? (Why on earth would they be?)

My single problem with the article, incidentally, is its facile identification of Turabi as a radical. On a lot of issues his writings are sort of mainstream conservative cleric and in some issues he is sort of moderate / liberal. He is a pretty complex character.

L. is correct.
Genocide comes from genos, meaning family, race or tribe, requiring a degree of biological kinship.
Ethnicide or ethnic cleansing is appropriate for ethnic groups, religions, polit affiliations, etc--not necessarily biological kinship.
You can think of it as an attempt to purge a gene pool.
By this definition the Shoah and Rwanda were genocide, Da Fur and Bosnia ethnicides.
Like Stacy says, words mean something.

Anna

I'm no expert on Dar Fur either, but here's a clarification:
There are two groups fighting each other.

Actually more than two groups. A multitude of groups.

But generally, it breaks down to:
(i) Nomads, generally identifying ethnically as Arab (although this is often of recent vintage)
against
(ii) non-Nomadic groups, most notably the Fur and Zaghaoua speaking peoples.

All are Muslim to some ancient date. This wiki article seems decent on the historical framework: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur although as in all wiki articles, caveat emptor on the facts cited.

One seems to have a military advantage over the other and has committed the more atrocities, which is the nomadic group, being labeled in the press as "arab" though they are an African tribe (called Zaghouawa?) with militia called the "janjaweed" which seem to get Sudanese government sponsorship (?) or are they both not getting Sudanese sponsorship?

Well, the "arabs" are not 'an African tribe' - they're nomadics tribes (plural) that have taken on Arab identity. Like the Baggara.

Some of them may be native speakers of other languages, but in Dar Fur, nomad=Arab (all things being equal).

The name of the militia is a dead giveaway (Janjaouide? Hardly Arabic that)

And the fine government of Sudan has given them some sponsorship in the last few years, in reaction to the step up in activity by anti-government forces largely of Fur and Zaghawa origin.

The article is really kind of confusing as it does not explain which political groups are which tribes. Are the Fur associated with Hassan al Turabi? (Why on earth would they be?)

The Fur (an ethno-linguistic group, not a tribe) or better the anti-Khartoum forces associated with the Fur and Zaghaoua began a dalliance with Turabi after his criticisms of the central government.

Politics.

I should also note my past commentary on Dar Fur
http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2005/10/dar_fur_aka_dar.php

Now, again, I should refrain from commenting on idiocy, but I have yet to learn my lesson.

L. is correct.

Goes without saying, really, but moving on:
Genocide comes from genos, meaning family, race or tribe, requiring a degree of biological kinship.

No it bloody doesn't, you semi-literate git.

Genocide refers to the attempted extinction of an entire people, tout court. There is no "biological" definition of the same (it would be impossible - mid 20th century Jews for example hardly consist a biological group), nor is one necessary.

It merely requires the conscious and deliberate attempt to annihilate an entire people (or a near effective equivalent, a la Cambodia).

Ethnicide or ethnic cleansing is appropriate for ethnic groups, religions, polit affiliations, etc--not necessarily biological kinship.

Bollocks.

Ethnic cleansing refers to Bosnia like situations where for whatever the slaughter, there is no organised objective to effectively wipe out the group in question. Taking an example, whatever the agitprop of the day, e.g. re Bosnia and the Serbs, it seems clear the Serbs were operating largely to expel the non-Serb Bosnians out of the territory, not Nazi like extermination.

Kicking out the undesirables so to speak.

Bloody, lots of deaths, rapes and hatred, but

You can think of it as an attempt to purge a gene pool.

Please don't. It sickens me when people adopt barely understood biology in such circumstances. The illiteracy of it itself irritates.

There is no question that there is ethnic violence, warfare, cleansing and barbarity. The physical reality, however, is the two sides are equally "black."

Yes, the "Southern Sudanese victims of Islamization, Arabization and enslavement at the hands of the tiny Arab minority in [the Sudan] are black as are the 'Arabs'. So?

Primo, the very idea presumes the Fur, the Zaghaoua and others have money to hire "private security" - but leaving aside the factual issue of money, the proposition also forgets that there are two sides here - the Fur and the Zaghaoua have their own militias, and indeed private armies.

Yes, and they can't fight worth a damn.

It is hardly rational for anyone with the merest passing knowledge of the area to think "hiring" a security force is a possible...

..I can't hold it against Blackwater for trying to get paid.

You said that there was no way the Fur tribes could afford to pay a group like Blackwater. Apparently, Blackwater disagees with you. Since they are businessmen and since they are offering their services, I'd guess that they know more about this than you do.

When it comes to military strategy and the possiblity of success, I'd guess that the Blackwater folks also know more.

The idiot pimp writes "Private military companies have had a hard time convincing the international community that privatizing peacekeeping would be as good for Darfur, and for the rest of the world, as for their industry. In part that's because of the mixed reputation their work in Iraq has earned them ....."

Indeed, mixed reputation, like killing lots of innocent civilians, being above the law, stunningly expensive....

If by 'innocent civilians' you mean insurgents fighting in civilian clothes, yes, Blackwater and the American military has managed to kill tens of thousands of them. Hopefully they'd do the same to the janjiweed insurgents/militants/ethnic cleansers/whatever. If they managed to cap the Hakama in the process, good for them.

There is nothing really recommending the idea (of course I rather doubt the French who have actual substantial interest in the area would go for it) other than ignorance of the region.

The 'Operation Turquoise' French have a history of encouraging genocide in Africa, not preventing it. If they get involved, I'd expect the situation to get worse not better.

One would be far better off arming the Zaghaoua and Fur from Tchad under plausible deniability

Instapundit made the same recommendation. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work because 1) The Fur and Zaghaoua have already proven than they can't fight worth a damn 2) it's a very predictable tactic, there is no possibility of plausible deniability 3) It would be a marketing bonanza for Bashir - even if we weren't providing the arms, Bashir would say that the Americans (or the west, or the Christians) are trying to destroy the 'peace process' in Darfur. He could gain sympathy in the United Nations while simultaneously ramping up the attacks to completely wipe out the ineffectively armed opposition.

Despite Blackwater's interest, they wouldn't be the best choice, since they are mostly US-based. An internationally based NGO would be a better choice.The idea is to avoid any foreign government involvement. Bashir and his ilk know how to use political alliances (the Sudan, like the KSA, is one of our most important allies in the war against terrorism, after all), the Arab League and the United Nations to acheive their goals. As a result, there isn't a nation in the world that's willing to stand up to this militarily weak dictator.

Well, I would suggest Darfurians or something slightly more melodious. Or Fur, even if it lumps the Zaghaoua and others in.
Call it whatever you want, but how the people identify themselves (and distinguish themselves from each other) gets to the root of the conflict. Using Darfur makes it sound like "Sudan vs. Darfur" i.e. two different countries at war, when the conflict is based around ethnic (or perceived ethnic) and lifestyle differences.

Using a terminology that falsely implies a racialisation that doesn't exist (not in the terms as imagine in the US, with its own racial history), and that tends to build into an emmergant anti-Arab bigotry rather irritates me. I find it dishonest and unhelpful (never mind the hidden bigotry that would have it that the "Africans" are not "real Muslims" - generally in the sense of constrasting with 'evil Arabs' although the prejudice goes the other way as well).
Fair enough, but race is always a social construct anyway. It may or may not be tied to genetic heritage to varying degrees but its social effects are really what makes race race.

As to the usage of the word genocide, well, I would not call Bosnia genocide. It cheapens the word. Genocide is a heavy word that should mean something like what Hitler did, or what the Khmer Rouge achieved.
Well certainly Hitler is an example of genocide (the example in fact as the term was coined to describe the actions of the Nazi govt). But I asked the question since a specific listing of what was and what wasn't would make it clearer what your dividing line is. I think the KR is a good example here, because by many standards it wasn't a genocide; it wasn't ethnic at root and indeed was a government wiping out many of its own citizens, "citizens" being a relative term here. At base it was a class conflict with a political component. The fact that so many were killed is simply a measure of their "success". ~1.7 mil were killed in Cambodia, 300K or so so far in Darfur. That is less than an order of magnitude difference, so it can't possibly be the numbers. Darfur has more of an ethnic component and if it's not stopped, many many more will be killed. Seems to me it's more of a genocide than Cambodia was.

Of course I should note I rather dislike the term "ethnic cleansing", it sounds like a euphemism that the perpetrators came up with. The only substantial difference between it and genocide anyway is that it can take place through deportation and expulsion rather than killing, but of course many are being killed in Darfur (and were in Bosnia) so I fail to see the difference.

Genocide comes from genos, meaning family, race or tribe, requiring a degree of biological kinship.

No it bloody doesn't, you semi-literate git.

wrong.

Genocide refers to the attempted extinction of an entire people, tout court. There is no "biological" definition of the same (it would be impossible - mid 20th century Jews for example hardly consist a biological group), nor is one necessary.
Family, tribe, race, all imply a degree of consanguinity. Jews also claim consanguinity, don't they? There are also shared alleles and haplotype in the case of race and jewish populations.

It sickens me when people adopt barely understood biology...

Perhaps you barely understand it. That does not mean that I do not.

BTW, since we are discussing the meaning and genesis of words, it is chick-let, from the candy coated american gum bits of that name.

I also dislike "ethnic cleansing".
But the term does mean the removal of a population instead of the extermination of one.

Perhaps, L., you were referring to the "political" meaning of genocide?

Of course he was you nitwit, read his comments. Do you think the UN uses PCRs to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes genocide?

More idiots.

First this idiocy from Mary:
Yes, the "Southern Sudanese victims of Islamization, Arabization and enslavement at the hands of the tiny Arab minority in [the Sudan] are black as are the 'Arabs'. So?

Well "victims" of "Islamisation" and "Arabisation" is a funny way to put things, but my dear, the article is about Southern Sudan - speech actually.

Dar Fur is not Southern Sudan.

The Fur, the Zaghaoua and others converted to Islam (of their own accord) in the Middle Ages. Literally nearly a thousand years ago.

Now leaving aside the 'tiny Arab minority' agitprop by the southerner (Arab identified population in Sudan is hardly "tiny" or a "minority" in the traditional sense by reasonable counts), the issue highlighted re Dar Fur in the context of this Op Ed is the fallacious understanding of the conflict that seems to be widespread among people, well like yourself, that this is some "White on Black" kind of conflict.

The imagery - African versus Arab or Black versus Arab falsely implies an understanding of some Saudi looking people attacking from 'outside' poor little quaint Africans.

The facts on the ground are utterly different.

It's nomads versus farmers. Physically they're indistinguishable as (i) they're related - the op ed arty notes that, (ii) they've both been resident in the region for 'forever.'

In every way this is a fundamentally different conflict from the 'North - South' conflict.

Dar Fur and the Nile Valley have deep historical ties, and while they might not have formed one nation without the fine help of our fine British cousins, they certainly formed part of "one world" as it were.

The southerns below the Sudd Swamps were never part of this, historically had little contact with the upper Nile (the Sudd means damn, and effectively describes the effect of the marshes) and are only part of Sudan because of British idiocy in glomming them onto the Khartoum governed provinces on independence rather than onto Uganda, for example.

Still would have made for war, but not as bad I should think.

Next:
Re Fur and Zaghaoua militias:
Yes, and they can't fight worth a damn.

They can't?

Well, I don't know that. They were tough enough that the Khartoum government mobilised all kinds of resources to go after them.

Could well be that (and this appears to be the case) that they don't have the money to support the expenses - bullets and guns, etc. cost money, dimwit, lots of money.

Re Blackwater
You said that there was no way the Fur tribes could afford to pay a group like Blackwater. Apparently, Blackwater disagees with you. Since they are businessmen and since they are offering their services, I'd guess that they know more about this than you do.

No Blackwater, you drooling subliterate fool, was talking about getting paid from international sources, Peacekeeping Funds - if you read for comprehension.

Good lord you are a stupid illiterate fool.

They're shopping for the next government paycheck since the profitable game of ripping of the gullible fools in the US Department of Defence (and its subcontractors) for Iraqi operations is winding down.

Afraid they're just going to have to tighten belts, as that kind of cheque writing ain't going to happen over poor, oil-less Dar Fur.

Nor are they likely to get business from the folks who may actually get some dinero to spend, the Zaghaoua centered government of Idriss Deby of Tchad. Good old Driss seems to, according to current rumour, gotten himself a payday with some oil money, but that's likely to go to French contractors. As the French so kindly "expressed" their position with respect to raiders and the Tchadian revolt via warplanes.

When it comes to military strategy and the possiblity of success, I'd guess that the Blackwater folks also know more.

I'd guess that Blackwater knows more about getting a payday and scamming governments out of money for security services. That says fuck all about them knowing what is happening in Dar Fur and Tchad, nor the real situation there. Reading the statements - again as a literate person - it's clear the fellows are angling for a Peacekeeping Dollars payday. Ain't gonna happen.

Moving along to yet more simple minded ignoramus American posturing:
If by 'innocent civilians' you mean insurgents fighting in civilian clothes, yes, Blackwater and the American military has managed to kill tens of thousands of them. Hopefully they'd do the same to the janjiweed insurgents/militants/ethnic cleansers/whatever. If they managed to cap the Hakama in the process, good for them.

Ah the brave and bloody words of fat Americans sitting safely tens of thousands of miles away, in faux concern over others.

By civilians I means civilians, not insurgents - and the stream of reports of foreign security contractors opening fire on Iraqis with little provocation underline their reputation.

I can only imagine what the fine bloody minded mercenaries would do in Dar Fur, not being able as in Iraq to speak the language(s), tell one side from another or generally follow the circumstances.

Ride around in expensive convoys protecting the elite by whacking any stray traffic that comes near, one presumes, like Baghdad.

Great for the elite, the rich and the contracting company.

Does fuck all for security.

But then Iraq rather proves the case. The great American failure.

Now as to this piece of pious hypocritical inanity:
The 'Operation Turquoise' French have a history of encouraging genocide in Africa, not preventing it. If they get involved, I'd expect the situation to get worse not better.

As the French are already tangentially involved - via Tchad and their forces there, I find your sad posturing rather contemptible.

History of encouraging genocide.... Well, what can we expect from Americans besides self-deluded posturing and faux moral superiority. It's convincing to the home audience, not very convincing elsewhere (although let me note for the other readers that I personally don't find American interventions objectionable, nor the US lacking in morality more than others. What is contemptible here is the ill-informed, hypocritical over-weening self-congratulation inherent in criticising the French involvement in Africa, which like the American involvement in the Americas, has its dark side. Raison d'etat, at least the French were honest about it now and again after they got tired of the mission civilatrice tripe.)

Now as to these pronouncements re arming the Fur and the Zaghaoua:
Unfortunately, it wouldn't work because 1) The Fur and Zaghaoua have already proven than they can't fight worth a damn

There is few things more contemptible and stupid than people who know fuck all about the people in question, the history of the area, and the situation making grand pronouncements, like the Fur and the Zaghaoua can't fight.

What facts?

None really, just that the nomad militias seem to be winning.

Well, one should know why.

Bit of history, the Zaghaoua based Tchadian army (militias) kicked Libyan ass really only about a decade ago. Involved fighters from the same folks, including those who crossed over from Dar Fur. (Tchad's current leader started off there, in Dar Fur).

They were supplied.

And had air cover.

Having actual bullets, supplies, etc. makes an enormous difference.

But feel free to denigrate the Fur and the Zaghaoua, who you know nothing about at all, for your preset prejudices and conclusions.

2) it's a very predictable tactic, there is no possibility of plausible deniability

Sure there is.

Arms flow into Tchad, and flow to their countrymen. Tchad already has a major axe to grind against the Khartoum government for supporting last month's attempt to topple dear Driss.

Again, helps to know the actual area and situation, before fucking making pronouncements.

And since you know fuck all about it, quite clearly, why not keep your fucking mouth shut.

3) It would be a marketing bonanza for Bashir - even if we weren't providing the arms, Bashir would say that the Americans (or the west, or the Christians) are trying to destroy the 'peace process' in Darfur. He could gain sympathy in the United Nations while simultaneously ramping up the attacks to completely wipe out the ineffectively armed opposition.

Now there, that could be a problem. But again, the Khartoum government is going to claim all kinds of things.

The Tchadian connnexion rather solves many issues.

Ugly to be sure. But all this in the context of the presumption of no peacekeepers.

That was taken as a given.

I rather think the most cost effective route is paying the South Africans and their allies to do the peacekeeping. Far more cost effective.

OAU not such a great idea, you get the Nigerians who are corrupt and incompetent, as their interventions in West Africa showed.

An internationally based NGO would be a better choice. The idea is to avoid any foreign government involvement.

This is merely daft.

Bashir and his ilk know how to use political alliances (the Sudan, like the KSA, is one of our most important allies in the war against terrorism, after all), the Arab League and the United Nations to acheive their goals.

Yeah, Bashir is not a drooling idiot.

Plus Dar Fur has not risen to the level of "State Interest" in anyone's playbook, although with Tchad and the mucking around there, that may have changed for the French.

(I'll leave aside the "war against terror" nonsense. Perhaps I shall launch a "war" against stupidity.)

Finally re Asher:
The only substantial difference between it and genocide anyway is that it can take place through deportation and expulsion rather than killing, but of course many are being killed in Darfur (and were in Bosnia) so I fail to see the difference

Genocide is wiping out a people/ethnic group/population. Ethnic cleansing is beating them up and trying to kick them out. One goal is utterly different from the other. Explusion is different from being wiped out, which anyone with the merest fading acquiatance with a capacity for rational thinking should be able to discern.

There is no actual sign, I may add, in Dar Fur, that anyone is trying to wipe out the Fur. Or the Zaghaoua.

Break their political independence, and the political movements by beating the living fuck out of the supporting populations, sure. Wipe them out. No.

oh, pardon....I just thought this was quite different from what he saying...
...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group...
By that definition, Da Fur is definitely genocide, no?

Did you miss this part of L's last comment? Quite clear. I will quote it for you again.

Genocide is wiping out a people/ethnic group/population. Ethnic cleansing is beating them up and trying to kick them out. One goal is utterly different from the other. Explusion is different from being wiped out, which anyone with the merest fading acquiatance with a capacity for rational thinking should be able to discern.

There is no actual sign, I may add, in Dar Fur, that anyone is trying to wipe out the Fur. Or the Zaghaoua.

Break their political independence, and the political movements by beating the living fuck out of the supporting populations, sure. Wipe them out. No.

Also, didn't you promise never to clutter up our comment section again with your idiotic and irrelevant musings?

Or does "Lounsbury" not count as part of Aqoul?

A bloody swarm of morons today.

First, I get treated to this:
Genocide comes from genos, meaning family, race or tribe, requiring a degree of biological kinship.

There is no requirement for "biological kinship" you semi-literate idiot.

Genocide is defined as

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Leaving aside the problematic vagueness of the definition with respect to acts (and the "in part" phrasing), it's quite bloody clear that genocide has no biological relationship component, despite your simple-minded, tedious, clumsy attempts to use etymology to force meanings.

Further
Family, tribe, race, all imply a degree of consanguinity. Jews also claim consanguinity, don't they? There are also shared alleles and haplotype in the case of race and jewish populations.

Primo, genocide does not require consanguinity, you bleeding idiot. Second, some Jewish populations share common descent as evidenced by recent genetic evidence, not all. There is the further obvious issue of converts and conversion.

As such, Jews, as a religion that in part, but not wholly overlapped with the idea of ethnicity, do not claim perfect consanguinity, you idiot.

Spare me any further of your semi-literate forays into population genetics.

Perhaps you barely understand it. That does not mean that I do not

You clearly don't have a fucking clue, so just shut the fuck up. It's not only annoying to have your semi-literate blithering on about population genetics issues, its an embarassement.

"In part" would be the operative description...so perhaps Bush was correct per CCPG definition?
I guess that depends on how many dead constitutes "in part"?

Of course he was you nitwit, read his comments. Do you think the UN uses PCRs to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes genocide?

Kha. Yes, run around and get material for Western Blots.... right in the field even.

...despite your simple-minded, tedious, clumsy attempts to use etymology to force meanings.

True. By her logic, a sarcophagus eats people because the word derives from "flesh-eater" in Greek.

I am talking about the genesis of the term genocide as it applies the current meaning. It is based on the extermination of populations that share kinship. The CCPG defintion has come to mean something different, I linked that also.

You are saying Da Fur is not genocide and you decry the racialist overtones of that description. I am agreeing with you. The CCPG is not.

I do not think the UN or the CCPG is going to admister genetic screening to determine if it is geneocide, I am talking about the genesis of the word.

And yes, I have had Theoretical Population Genetics in school and I am a great fan of R.A. Fisher and Sewell Wright.
Tant pis for me.

Listen you stupid whanker, I don't give a fuck what the fuck you are talking about, you're an irritating moron with nothing to say.

I am talking about the genesis of the term genocide as it applies the current meaning. It is based on the extermination of populations that share kinship. The CCPG defintion has come to mean something different, I linked that also.

The fucking term was coined to describe the wiping out of a populations.

Your strained attempts to import your impoverished obsession with some distorted comprehension of population genetics is irrelevant and has fuck all to do with anything, besides being utterly wrong.

You are saying Da Fur is not genocide and you decry the racialist overtones of that description. I am agreeing with you. The CCPG is not.

Dar Fur. Dar Fur.

For the record, you idiotic sub-literate git, I am not "decrying" any racialist bloody anything with respect to genocide, you drooling illiterate.

My issue with the word genocide as applied to Dar Fur is merely factual with respect to scope etc. It has nothing the fuck to do with the issue of race or not.

I am talking about the genesis of the word.

You're whanking on like a blithering idiot.

And yes, I have had Theoretical Population Genetics in school and I am a great fan of R.A. Fisher and Sewell Wright.
Tant pis for me.

Yes, too bad for you. I don't give a bloody fuck about your bloody coursework. Just stop fucking blithering on about irrelevancies that have fuck all to do with anything other than your ill-disguised obsessions.

In short, fucking shut up and stay shut up until you learn joined up reading and gain some vague modicum of reading comprehension.

What I was clumsily trying to address was the "all black" component of Da Fur. You can argue that the killing, raping, etc, falls under the CCPG definition of genocide, but I personally think (because of the genesis of the word) that "intent" has to include the perception by the genocidiares that the groups are somehow seperable not by ethnic values alone.
It does not seem from the Wax article that any group in the conflict seperable by race.

And of course, I could be wrong.

Break their political independence, and the political movements by beating the living fuck out of the supporting populations, sure. Wipe them out. No.
Then how are the actions of the Khmer Rouge genocide? The goal was not to wipe out a population; that so many people were killed is incidental. Even Rwanda had its origins in politics. By your standards there has never been a genocide except the Holocaust.

Also, didn't you promise never to clutter up our comment section again with your idiotic and irrelevant musings?
Or does "Lounsbury" not count as part of Aqoul?

Sorry, wasn't aware you ever got my mail. You never mentioned any of the literature cites I sent you. I will heretofor count Lounsbury as indistiguishable from 'Aqoul. ;)

In short, fucking shut up and stay shut up until you learn joined up reading and gain some vague modicum of reading comprehension.
As you wish.

Well, in the case of Cambodia it strikes me that the sheer indifference to the mortality made the implicit goal wiping out the population or most of it. And they went a long way towards said goal. Sure, it was framed in a delusional Marxist set of blither, but the enemies of the Revolution, etc. was effectively so broad as to effectively define all Cambodians ex the Khmer Rouge core.

That Rwanda had its origins in politics is irrelevant - of course it did. So did the Nazi genocide.

My preference for a restricted understanding and usage of genocide is synomous with my preference for keeping the word to mean the wiping out of a population (however defined), whether an explicit goal (Rwanda, Nazi Germany) or implicitely (Khmer Rouge). It also should be an organised affaire.

This keeps the word for the true horrors of State organised ... genocide, rather than watering the word down to mean any kind of ethnic conflict where bad things are happening (which tends to happen after all in civil wars / ethnic cleansing).

When Bosnia becomes genocide, the word loses real meaning.

But it seems a large number of persons like emotive bleating over rational and careful analysis.

(i) Nomads, generally identifying ethnically as Arab (although this is often of recent vintage)against
(ii) non-Nomadic groups, most notably the Fur and Zaghaoua speaking peoples.

Actually apparently the Zaghawa/Zaghaoua are generally counted among the nomadic groups ( sheep and cattle-herding pastoralists ), which blurs the distinctions even more.

Frankly I find all the political and ethnic entanglements in Darfur fascinating, but they're a mess. For example the Baggara are often identified as a major source of the janjaweed militia, but not all Baggara ( a rather catch-all category ) are involved. Then you get closer in and subgroups of the Baggara like the Rizeigat are identified as major combatants. But again, you find a division between the northern camel-herding Abbala Rizeigat who are up to their elbows in the fighting as distinct from the southern, cattle-herding Baggara Rizeigat that were more aloof from it.

Meanwhile Idris Derby, the Zaghawa president of Chad, took over Chad from a base in Darfur. But now other Zaghawa are among the largest groups making up the front opposed to him that recently invaded from Darfur, supposedly with Sudanese aid. Their biggest complaint? Derby wasn't providing Chadian resources to aid the Darfur Zaghawa in the fight against the Sudanese government that now might be slipping them resources to attack Chad. All while the Sudanese claim the Zaghawa want to secede to form a greater 'Zaghawastan'.

Ignorance is bad, but I don't blame anyone who gets confused by the situation in Sudan. You need a mighty big scorecard.

Re: genocide/ethnic cleansing: how would you categorize the WWI-era Ottoman Armenian situation?

My strong Turkish sympathies aside, if the facts are as the Armenians characterise them or reasonably close, then it smells a lot like an attempt at genocide.

I've never read deeply on the subject, and am always somewhat sceptical of these kinds of claims, so my instinct is to doubt at some level the Ottomans really attempted or achieved genocide. However, as I said, I have a pro-Turkish bias and willingly admit that the Armenian case might prove out, that my level of knowledge is insufficient to hold a strong opinion, and the case for Ottoman atrocities (whether rising to the level of genocide or not) is strong.

Fair enough?

As to Tamerlane...

Finally a comment that brings rationality and real meat to the table. The novelty value alone makes it worth it (not to mention getting the lazy Tamerlane moving on the commenting front).

Fair enough on the Zaghaoua, however, regardless my core observation is at the gross level of an objection to the deep disortion of the [implied] White Arabs against the poor native Africans imagery that is being pimped about Dar Fur.

Not to mention the idiocy of the "Islamist" Janjaouide versus the "Africans" when in fact some of the Fur and Zaghaoua insurgency leadership have real ties to an actual Islamist (Turabi).

The fictionalisation of the conflict to fit comic book views and understandings does no good, for all that the underlying situ is bloody complicated.

No Blackwater, you drooling subliterate fool, was talking about getting paid from international sources, Peacekeeping Funds - if you read for comprehension.

Good lord you are a stupid illiterate fool.

Speak for yourself. Blackwater has no problem figuring out the "factual issue of money", an issue you had some trouble with. In this situation, Blackwater should be considered the 'experts'.

That says fuck all about them knowing what is happening in Dar Fur and Tchad, nor the real situation there. Reading the statements - again as a literate person - it's clear the fellows are angling for a Peacekeeping Dollars payday. Ain't gonna happen.

In your opinion. Again, I'll trust the experts.

Great for the elite, the rich and the contracting company.

Does fuck all for security.

But then Iraq rather proves the case. The great American failure.

Iraq isn't really comparable here. The private contractors vs. ethnic cleansing scenario worked pretty well in Sierra Leone. They even worked out a payment plan. Unfortunately, the UN prefers to maintain a monopoly over do-gooding, despite the fact that they do no good.

What is contemptible here is the ill-informed, hypocritical over-weening self-congratulation inherent in criticising the French involvement in Africa, which like the American involvement in the Americas, has its dark side. Raison d'etat, at least the French were honest about it now and again after they got tired of the mission civilatrice tripe.

Contemptible and ill informed. If you're using this lame moral equivalency to defend French actions in Rwanda, you are again speaking for yourself.

the Zaghaoua based Tchadian army (militias) kicked Libyan ass really only about a decade ago.

ooo, the Libyans. Tough guys.

Otherwise, your suggestions and analysis prove that you're no military expert. Neither am I, so I'll have to respect the opinions of people who are.

nice little op-ed. maybe this will finally convince my mother of the five points of the writer.

and, All: good god! you people write too much!

You, Mary, are retarded.

Truly retarded.

Let me quote the article, on the dim hope that perhaps you have some vague skills in reading and might dimly comprehend if your bloody nose is rubbed in it:
"''When traditional peacekeepers can't provide an adequate response because of their home country obligations, there's an alternative that should be openly and frankly discussed. And that's a private professional group," says Chris Taylor, Blackwater's vice president for strategic initiatives. As he sees it, his company could provide the necessary security in places like Darfur ''so that traditional NGOs and aid agencies could do the work they can't do [now]."

The UN and others clearly have legitimate questions about whether private military companies can do what they claim.

... What companies like Blackwater are proposing to do in Darfur today is very different from the combat missions of a decade ago. ''We have no interest in offensive operations," says Taylor flatly."

This passage and the entire goddamned discussion in the Op Ed revolve around (and I quote again) "Should international bodies use private contractors for peacekeeping missions?"

So, despite your stupidly snottily little comments about depending on the "experts" in fact, the entire fucking proposition arises from your misreading of the actual Blackwater propo, and your continued pitiful reading and comprehension skills.

Where do sub-literate drooling incompetently whanking retards like you come from? No wonder the US education system is under such criticism, if this and that jinni person are an example of what it produces.

Moving along to more of your illiterate errant idiocy:
raq isn't really comparable here. The private contractors vs. ethnic cleansing scenario worked pretty well in Sierra Leone. They even worked out a payment plan. Unfortunately, the UN prefers to maintain a monopoly over do-gooding, despite the fact that they do no good.

Monopoly? I continue to be amazed by the rank ignorance and sheer idiocy of retarded American anti-UN tin-foil hatters.

There is no fucking monopoly you semi-literate ideologue of an idiot, if there were your cite (off target as it is) wouldn't fucking exist (never mind the Op Ed already discusses mercenary involvement in civil wars in Africa).

Your snide sneering at the UN peacekeeping missions is simply boring and unworthy of comment given it so evidently is knee jerking ignorance and a bizarre ideological hostility to the UN qua UN, rather than an informed (or even rational) analysis (although what can one expect from someone who managed to not understand a simple Opinion piece written at the Middle Schools level).

Let's get to your idiotic citation of the Sierre Leone conflict as supporting your equally moronic Dar Fur scenario:

(i) Not peacekeeping, mercenary operations on the behalf of a government against an insurgency - the Kabbaj government - that could finance it. Money. And as the very source says, it (twice) fell apart when Kabbaj couldn't pay for the mercenaries.
(ii) The financing source was the infamous 'conflict diamonds' - Sierre Leone is rich in diamonds as it happens.
(iii) The costs of the conflict quite bankrupted the country in the end. The citation is more than a bit off in comparing one-offs with sustained costs.

Dar Fur, of course, lacks even diamonds or anything of particular economic interest, so a non-starter (but again, all this stems from you semi-literate misreading of the bloody Boston Globe Op Ed).

Finally, Contemptible and ill informed. If you're using this lame moral equivalency to defend French actions in Rwanda, you are again speaking for yourself.
I always speak for myself, you drooling little hypocritical git. Defending the French re Rwanda, not at all, I was commenting as a general matter on French involvement in Africa. But again, your posturing is boring, as are your ill-informed attacks on the UN, France etc.

Now get lost, you waste my time with idiocies and sub-literate mis-reading of your own bloody sources. Bloody hell, does the entire United States need to be sent to learn how to read for comprehension in the English language, or is it just I get the Special Education school leavers here?

So if Blackwater Corp gets hired as mercenaries by the UN, do they get to ride around in black helicopters?

"Anyone who looks at the entire Sahel can see the same thing happening as the Sahara pushes south."

Why is this happening?

Desertification?

Less rain, on average. Plus population pressure which are taking off soil cover, trees, etc., which as I understand it renders the transition zone more fragile and prone to transition to desert.

Tipping points are reached, and slowly, slowly, slowly desert eats the land.

I'm not a geologist or climatologist (and I gots major work now), but I think that's a fair rendition.

Further East African examples of desertification and conflict:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-waterwar31mar31,1,3174846.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Great educational discussion here (I'm grateful to learn more about the tribes and political motivations via Chad), though I distress that the same (or similar) debate continues over "ethnic cleansing vs. genocide".

With the ongoing desertification and conflict examined here, why can't there be a process put into place that brings together East African nations to discuss, plan and implement desalination programs? (Sudan certainly has the oil to provide the energy for it). With financial backing from the EU, US (and perhaps even China, which has growing influence throughout) and the private sector, perhaps it could be a boon for stabilization efforts and inter-state/regional cooperation.

One last note: Pres. Bush & Colin Powell coined the term "genocide" to describe the tragedy in Dar Fur for partisan political gains in the 2004 election campaign. Dar Fur had become and still is a hot-button issue for evangelicals who form part of the GOP base, and the GOP utilized everything in the playbook to get them energized and out to vote. After this happened, people seemed to think it was okay to label it a genocide since the USG had, ignoring the narrow political reasoning for it.

(My humble opinion on this matter changed thanks to facts brought forth by Aqoul contributors Meph & Collonsbury that I could not logically ignore) Its ethnic cleansing, and to call it genocide is to further radicalize the position of not only those in power in Sudan, but also their supporters in the Arab League, China, etc etc. at the UN and other international forums. Furthermore, it emboldens the rebels to continue to press the fight because it would seem to them that at some point, intervention and the international community will favor their side, it being the victim of a "genocide".

Eddie

Good to hear from you again.

Let me reply the best I can to this:

Great educational discussion here (I'm grateful to learn more about the tribes and political motivations via Chad), though I distress that the same (or similar) debate continues over "ethnic cleansing vs. genocide".

Thanks, but new people come to the issue... etc. And some people are just plain thick headed.

With the ongoing desertification and conflict examined here, why can't there be a process put into place that brings together East African nations to discuss, plan and implement desalination programs? (Sudan certainly has the oil to provide the energy for it). With financial backing from the EU, US (and perhaps even China, which has growing influence throughout) and the private sector, perhaps it could be a boon for stabilization efforts and inter-state/regional cooperation.

The quick answer is desalinisation is fucking expensive and energy intensive, at least for most technologies, prohibilitvely so for any large quantities of water.

It's simply not a practical answer to desertification at this stage - above all for lowest income states like Tchad, etc.

On coastal states, and in areas where groundwater has become saline due to salt creep from buried salt pans, there is some potential for developing, to my understanding, lower cost desal technologies for urban drinking water and potentially some limited agri applications. However, there is not a good general solution for the Sahel and East African desertification based on desal.

My understanding of effective anti-desertification efforts - and here I admit superficial knowledge so let me underline the superficiality and emphase on this issue I pretend to no 'on the ground' expertise (as I might re the business climate or some such) - focus on campaigns to (re)introduce soil stabilising trees and shrubbery, and provide villagers/marginal agriculturalists with non-plant fuelled heating and esp. cooking devices (e.g. solar).

My understanding is much desertification is driven by women chopping down virtually everything to fuel cooking fires. An example of population densities tipping traditional economies from stable and sustainable into unsustainability and a self-destructive cycle.

On the nomad side, it's over-grazing - again too many people trying to live off of a lifestyle that can't be supported at modern densities (at least without toppling the ecosystem into a spiral towards desertification).

To my mind, this highlights the need to develop and boost modern, efficient economic growth in such countries, as their traditional economies are simply self-destructive now - however the anti-Globalisation people like to wax romantic about the same and blame economic globalisation for ecosystem decline.

Not easy answers, and again, my knowledge of anti-desertification programs/projects etc. is very superficial so let me stress I am sharing somewhat impressionistic information and I may be getting some things wrong.

One last note: Pres. Bush & Colin Powell coined the term "genocide" to describe the tragedy in Dar Fur for partisan political gains in the 2004 election campaign. Dar Fur had become and still is a hot-button issue for evangelicals who form part of the GOP base, and the GOP utilized everything in the playbook to get them energized and out to vote. After this happened, people seemed to think it was okay to label it a genocide since the USG had, ignoring the narrow political reasoning for it.

Well, this strikes me as understandable, however much I don't like it.

I think it was a mistake, but there it is.

(My humble opinion on this matter changed thanks to facts brought forth by Aqoul contributors Meph & Collonsbury that I could not logically ignore) Its ethnic cleansing, and to call it genocide is to further radicalize the position of not only those in power in Sudan, but also their supporters in the Arab League, China, etc etc. at the UN and other international forums. Furthermore, it emboldens the rebels to continue to press the fight because it would seem to them that at some point, intervention and the international community will favor their side, it being the victim of a "genocide".

Right.

Although to be fair, even the more accurate ethnic cleansing would likely fall into similar issues.

The core problem is motivating intervention in a highly marginal area.

I don't see a Western force being deployed. Not now, not ever.

Trying to get OAU beefed up, that may work. And of course if the Sudanese keep getting their fingers caught in Tchad, the French will react at some level, if only by passing arms via Tchad to their allies.

So, despite your stupidly snottily little comments about depending on the "experts" in fact, the entire fucking proposition arises from your misreading of the actual Blackwater propo, and your continued pitiful reading and comprehension skills.

I agree with Blackwater's expert assessment of their ability to handle the military/security situation. I don't agree with their choice to sell their services to the international community, international bodies, etc. The Boston Globe article concludes:

More fundamentally, many believe that the international community has a special responsibility to take on problems such as Darfur-and that outsourcing humanitarian interventions to the private sector is just another way of sidestepping the hard political debates that should take place in public.

But the abstract ideal of an engaged international community might seem a rarefied consideration in light of the realities on the ground.

This came up a long time ago. People were saying that if we use private sector in the Congo, the international community will never get its act together," says industry spokesman Doug Brooks. "But that was 3 million dead Congolese ago. The international community isn't going to wake up no matter how many people you kill. I think that it would be a good idea for the international community to get its act together. But we've got to find another way.

You, Mary, are retarded. Truly retarded. There is no fucking monopoly you semi-literate ideologue of an idiot.

I continue to be dumbfounded that a grown man will prattle on this way, and that others find this behaviour tolerable. In any case, this is abuse, not an argument. There's an intelligent, expletive-free discussion about this issue at Winds of Change.

Re: Desal, I understand the limitations now, and I’m off to research and ask questions about (re)introduction of soil stabilizing trees and shrubs, etc etc.

Your mention of the self-destructive cycle is very interesting and spot-on I believe, which reminds me of similar dilemmas with pop. densities and traditional economies in Indonesia, Brazil and China. I did not consider this with regards to Dar Fur before…

I think we could spare a USAF contingent for a no-fly zone out of Chad... Could the French approve that (their neighborhood more than ours) if this rebellion continues?

Regardless, thank you for the insight…. I learn more here than most anywhere else about Dar Fur and with no sizeable English library in Japan that I’m aware of and book orders limited to whatever is affordable on Amazon or Powell’s…. Aqoul’s contribution happens to be rather major.

So the retard comes up with a sad attempt at face saving.

Why not fucking admit, you sub-literate whinging contemptible hypocrite, you fucking didn't bloody understand neither the article nor the fucking proposition.

Instead, we have this idiotic and contemptible attempt to spin:

"I agree with Blackwater's expert assessment of their ability to handle the military/security situation. I don't agree with their choice to sell their services to the international community, international bodies, etc.

Expert assessment.

It's a fucking sales pitch you witless cunt.

As for their pitching to the UN etc., hey you said above you agreed with their evaluation (of course you didn't fucking understand it. Funny, when it doesn't match your ideological preconceptions, then it's not expert anymore eh?

Witless subliterate hypocrite, should bloody pack you off to the Sahara. It might have more amusement value.

As to your taking the pimping of industry spokesmen at face value, I am merely amused. But what can I expect from simple minded ideologues. Right Bolshies I call you, you're no better than the idiot Marxists, wandering about spouting ill-informed drivel.

I continue to be dumbfounded that a grown man will prattle on this way, and that others find this behaviour tolerable.

My blog, my behaviour.

Only idiots get taken about for a good whacking.

As for your silly little petty-bourgeous "grown man" thing, well, amusing again but afraid it has no real value on me. Work in tough places, one grows a thick skin instead of whinging on.

You're an ill-informed hypocritical ideologue of a moron with poor reading comprehension skills at once running down people and institutions you have fuck all of an understanding of, for which I have nothing but contempt.

In any case, this is abuse, not an argument.

Right it is not an argument it is abuse. You're an idiot who can't even understand her sources and prattles on without the least bit of real knowledge, head filled with half-banked ideas lifted from writing she didn't even understand.

An argument requires information on both sides.

You're only good for abusing for your stupidity.

There's an intelligent, expletive-free discussion about this issue at Winds of Change.

In short, a bit of whanking on by a bunch of ideologues who know fuck all about the region, the specific circumstances or even the context.

But that's not important. What is important to the Bolshy (Right or Left) is whanking on to build ideological castles in the sky and confirm dearly held delusions. Facts, even the people really are quite secondary. Fur - why they can't fight.... Oh but we feel for them.... Not really, just an excuse to attack ideological enemies, engage in ideo-whanking and play pretend.

Now fuck off, stupid sub-literate hypocritical whinging little git.

Eddie:

Re: Desal, I understand the limitations now, and I’m off to research and ask questions about (re)introduction of soil stabilizing trees and shrubs, etc etc.

I'm sure you'll soon know more than me on this. I've encountered development folk working on these issues, and anti-desertification issues (reforesting and the like), always had the impression they were under-funded.

Of course one problem I know they have in western Africa / Maghreb is providing alternatives to the women so that the trees, shrubs and whatnot don't get chopped up and burned or eaten by goats, etc.

I might mention that I have had some contact with a carbon sequestration project involving replanting of some rare Sahel trees that also have economic production value. Brilliant idea, if I could find the financing for this I'd be in seventh heaven. But other items press.

Your mention of the self-destructive cycle is very interesting and spot-on I believe, which reminds me of similar dilemmas with pop. densities and traditional economies in Indonesia, Brazil and China. I did not consider this with regards to Dar Fur before…

Pop densities, what it's all about really. A lot of the bubbling violence in Egypt (1 million new Egyptians a year) for example is tied directly to this - ever smaller plots (subdivision as families grow), diminishing returns.

You get violence as the pressure builds - only real solution is economic growth, and that means modernisation.

I think we could spare a USAF contingent for a no-fly zone out of Chad... Could the French approve that (their neighborhood more than ours) if this rebellion continues?

I think a no fly zone is actually a doable thing. Would the French accept is a good question, I think with Khartoum government showing signs of rocking their boat, they just might. Have to be sold right (don't send Rumsfeld certainly, he's the anti-salesman)

Regardless, thank you for the insight…. I learn more here than most anywhere else about Dar Fur and with no sizeable English library in Japan that I’m aware of and book orders limited to whatever is affordable on Amazon or Powell’s…. Aqoul’s contribution happens to be rather major.

Glad to be of help. If we can get Meph out of her work and commenting again I am sure more thoughts would flow.

Loun,

You rock.

As for Mary's coup de grace cite of Winds of Change, it just goes to show how blindly she trusts the "experts":

"And they will be there to meet us, wherever we go. Wherever U.S. troops touch "Islamic" soil, they will come to meet us. Osama already is talking about a jihad in Darfur.

It doesn't matter how you feel about Iraq. We have to learn to fight this type of war. Because wherever we go, it waits for us."

It's always those damned Islamists! Lurking behind every heinous act! Why, only last week one of these Islamists cut me off on 495 and I spilled my latte all over the Mrs' new Jihad Watch t-shirt!

They're everywhere! The only way we can destroy this vindictive irrational ideology is with an even BIGGER vindictive irrational ideology! That'll show 'em.

Glad to be of help. If we can get Meph out of her work and commenting again I am sure more thoughts would flow.

Have been distracted but cheers Ed, a more productive angle is what developments will actually make the Sudanese government more likey to cooperate. Going on about how the government is out to get the darkies and look what it did in the South is belligerent couterproductive and damn near drives me to suicide. If supposedly the end desires of all involved in this debate is to ensure that there is as little bloodshed and displacement as possible in Darfur one should take a look at how the Sudanese government (although easily defaulting to empty rhetoric and confrontation with the international community, more in my opinion out of inertia from NIF days, the PR department hasn't had an overhaul concurrent with changing attitudes to Western investment and noveau wealth in Northern Sudan) might be tempted to be more proactive in solving the problem so thay can all concentrate on making more money and consolidating their positions and futures before the Southern Sudan vote comes up in a few years time. An increasingly profitable and complex network of oil workers and companies is being woven and leverage imposed on parts of that network will sting badly. Bashir is not an idiot but he and co are also not out to protect one ethnic group over another altruistically, as long as the intervention is not one so massively removed from geographical and regional differences (will not even dignify the private company suggestion) so as to appear to be compromising the sovereign of the oh so proud Sudanese government. South Africa et al are a comfortable and effective choice for everyone, of course the fact that the most lucrative tenders in Northern Sudan are mainly Malaysian, Chinese and Turkish makes it harded to exert pressure but it is an angle worthy of discussion.

Hello Meph, great to have some of your thoughts added to the discussion.... thank you for reminding me of the sensible considerations one has to make of the Southern Sudan vote in 5 more years.

It is my understanding via strategist Thomas PM Barnett (he is very keen on America developing a better relationship with China and is thus not a China-basher) that China pays something like 3-4x the standard price for Sudanese oil.... does this seem sensible? Just curious about this I suppose, though I wonder if this could become a bargaining chip for Bashir and co. to lower prices in exchange for greater Chinese support on the issue.

Now say these rallies and increasing domestic political pressure force Pres. Bush to move beyond rhetoric and actually look to do something about the Dar Fur problem. Aside from him the chances of him choosing to enact a no-fly zone (as it appears Khartoum is back to bad habits using its aircraft and helicopters to bomb villages), would it be possible to push for the Chinese to pressure Khartoum to accept a Turkish or South African led UN force comprised of a few thousand troops (i'm thinking Pakistani/Jordanian/Malaysian/Indonesian) who would join the existent AU force?

I would think at this stage if the Chad business is knocked off, accepting a UN/AU force that would protect the refugee camps (while eventually getting these people home and helping them rebuild it), guard the supply lines from rebel attack and also prevent rebel groups from entering the refugee camps and recruiting (willfully or forcefully) members could become acceptable to Bashir.

Perhaps, rather than bickering about the definition of genocide and what constitutes an ethnic group, we might use the word democide.

Is democide better in any way than genocide? Should the reaction to it be different?

Well, objectively speaking it doesn't seem to me any "cide" is occuring besides homocide.

The Fur and Zaghaoua are not actually being wiped out, whatever the hysteric activist bleating would have. Displaced (temporarily) and subject to typical civil war brutalities (at least typical in the developing world).

Should the reaction be different to various civil wars and ethnic cleansing? I don't know. Depends on the amount of real desire to intervene. Certainly the collapse of peace talks and the fragmentation of the Fur and Zaghaoua groups suggests half-assed 'intervenention' based on buying a line you were sold can extend suffering for no particularly strong reason that strong men (here Fur and Zaghaoua) seeking more oil money see they have some extra leverage.

Ed thank you for reminding me of the sensible considerations one has to make of the Southern Sudan vote in 5 more years

The Souther Sudan vote and how the possibility of the South separating potentially affects the attitudes of the Sudanese government is often overlooked as an issue divorced from that of Darfur. There are several complex considerations, firstly, at it stands the southern states receive a share of oil wealth as agreed upon by the peace treaty to be re-negotiated when (if, sorry betraying my predictive stand on the issue)the south separates. This puts the government in a position where it must concentrate on accumulating as much wealth as possible as there is very little accountability or follow up of expenditure, very little of which is ploughed back into infrastructure, another indication in my view of the self serving nature of government officials.

Secondly, the south is wealthier in terms of natural resources than the North, Al-Hijleej, the bigges oil plant in Sudan is in the South and is state owned in partnership with Petronas.

Thirdly, the soveriengty of the government will potentially be much compromised in the event of an independedent state (one which the north has been at war with for half a century) arising, Egypt is not a big fan of the idea as Nile water control will partly be in the hands of a fledgling non-Arab unfriendly state, itself prone to disintegration if warring tribes and factions don't hit it off.

How all this affects Darfur I think depends on how insecure and personally motivated members of the Sudanese government are, i.e how much can I line my own own pockets and consolidate my own position.

Just curious about this I suppose, though I wonder if this could become a bargaining chip for Bashir and co. to lower prices in exchange for greater Chinese support on the issue.

The Chinese are good ambassadors and have historically had a good relationship with many Sudanese governments, it is hard to specualte however how China would respond to promise of oil at cheaper prices either from the Sudanese or American end although at this point merely the suggestion that business will be taken elsewhere may be sufficient to get the government to cooperate. Traditionally though, China has received better treatment from Sudan than from other Western parties.

would it be possible to push for the Chinese to pressure Khartoum to accept a Turkish or South African led UN force comprised of a few thousand troops (i'm thinking Pakistani/Jordanian/Malaysian/Indonesian) who would join the existent AU force?

Hard to say how Khartoum will respond but if China and abovementioned countries are involved I am inclined to think that the response will not be overly belligerent. The leverage on China is the issue, if anything it has to be forged over the long term and even the promise of cheap oil can be rescinded.

Question to all: Who can tell me - or point me to good easy reading - about the differences between the Darfur rebel groups, in terms of tribes, ideology/motives, support, rivalries, etc?

I don't really know anything about it, except what I already read on 'Aqoul, so I suppose a good web page could be a fine place to start too.

Hmm...well here's a couple of things to start with at least. Warning - pdfs!!

A US Aid report that goes into a bit of detail on the combatants and background:

http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNADC781.pdf

A humanitarian analysis specifically of southwestern Darfur area with a detailed population breakdown of that region with a nice map