Argument: Preventing genocide in Darfur takes US away from stopping genocide in Iraq
- The US can't intervene in Darfur to prevent genocide without withdrawing in some form from Iraq, thus enabling genocide in Iraq to occur in some form or internecine violence to occur to some greater extent. So, why trade one form of genocide-prevention (in Iraq) for another (in Sudan)?
- The US is already positioned to prevent genocide in Iraq, while it would have to re-position itself physically and politically to prevent genocide in Darfur.
- The US is partly the cause of the potentially genocidal environment in Iraq, creating a unique responsibility to prevent such genocide from occurring. It is, however, not responsible for the genocide in Sudan, so less responsible for taking action there. Further, it can be accused internationally for any genocide occurring in Iraq, but not to such an extent for genocide occurring in Sudan.
- The United States has a central interest in Iraq in its fight against Islamic terrorism and in stabilizing the Middle East. Preventing genocide in Iraq is central to these interests. A failed Iraqi state could be a haven for terrorists and this could result from genocidal violence and civil war in Iraq. Therefore, taking actions in Sudan, where the interests to the United States are not as strong, would be a mis-prioritization of US interests, particularly if it detracts from the mission in Iraq.