Personal tools

Argument: Military intervention in Darfur would worsen jihadi anti-Americanism

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate(s)

Supporting evidence

  • David Rieff. "Moral Blindness: The Case Against Troops for Darfur". May 27, 2006 - "the United States no longer enjoys enough moral credibility in the world as a whole to intervene in Darfur in a way that would avoid deepening the civilizational crisis in which we find ourselves. Intervention would significantly exacerbate America's primary foreign policy challenge, a challenge far more significant in the long run than terrorism: that is, worldwide anti-Americanism. The reasons for this are straightforward and can be summed up by the words 'the global war on terror' and by the names 'Iraq,' 'Afghanistan,' and 'Israel-Palestine.' Whether the United States is right or wrong--caught dead to rights or horribly misunderstood--is beside the point. The salient fact is that, in much of the world, the United States is viewed as a bully, an imperial aggressor, and a rogue state determined to apply one law to itself and another to everyone else. In the Islamic world, the situation is far worse. Again, rightly or wrongly, a strong majority of our planet's 1.5 billion Muslims believe that the United States is leading a new crusade against Islam. And it is in this explosive global context that advocates of an intervention in Darfur propose deploying our Armed Forces, as if rubbing salt on that global wound is somehow an insignificant or morally unworthy consideration.
Is it really necessary (after Abu Ghraib, and with Guantánamo still serving as a Jihadi recruiting poster) to explain how terribly dangerous a deployment of the U.S. Armed Forces is likely to be, particularly since, were it to occur, this occupation of Darfur--let's call things by their right names--would take place without even the fig leaf of a U.N. Security Council authorization? Do the interventionists truly believe that American power is so irresistible, and the United States so secure, that these questions need not be taken into account? On the evidence--or, more precisely, on the basis of the seeming indifference to the question--the answer would seem to be yes."


See also

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits