| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Africa Horn | |
| How the Media and the Left Have Doomed Darfur | |
| 2006-12-05 | |
On many levels this conflict represents a failure of the media and liberal ideology with its distain for decisive military action. The government of Sudan is backing the Arab Janjaweed rebels as they slaughter and displace thousands of non-Arab inhabitants of the Darfur region. This conflict represents a government annihilating its own population and an utter failure on the part of the United Nations to intervene. This is a military conflict that necessitates a militarily-imposed solution. The problem with the solution is that it requires a significant investment of time and troops on the part of any nation or coalition to truly affect change. The United Nations has been shown to be truly impotent when it comes to affecting real change and it will not commit the necessary resources to militarily impose a stop to the on-going genocide in that country. It can pass resolution after resolution but it lacks the will to put any teeth behind its mandates. In times of crisis when the UN fails the world then looks to the United States to assist cleaning up the mess no other country can or will deal with, and herein is where the problem lies. | |
| Posted by:.com |
| #9 In short, the media and the left are a bunch of pious whiners who'll backstab you the moment the going gets choppy... I don't think the media or left will accept responsiblity for encouraging us to go into Iraq or Vietnam. But I think they are to blame for our going into Kosovo, Somalia, and Lebanon. I don't think BA's suggestion should be regarded as theoretical, since we actually have implemented media black-outs before: The Grenada operation was marked as a notable success, accompanied by loud howlings of the Media when the Pentagon refused to coordinate any media support. Oh, they were able to get news via phone line from people on the ground, but there was something quite chilling about going into a free-fire zone without the support of the American Soldiers they are accustomed to slandering. Great find, .com! |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-12-05 13:55 |
| #8 Make that "disdain", AT. Point taken though. It would take will, which is missing in their "no war is ever good" creed. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-12-05 13:25 |
| #7 Granted, the MSM will still "report" from their posh hotel lobbies, but at least they won't have any "scare" pics or videos to show. It's a lot cheaper to get the vids from the enemy, anyway. And more blood and guts! |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-12-05 13:01 |
| #6 I am one who favours going into Sudan provided it is coupled with a PR campaign aiming at driving a wedge between Muslim and non-Muslim Africa, between Arab and non-Arab Muslims so that by the end of it we get people rejecting Islam as a mere instrument of racist, imperialist panarabism (panarabism and Islamism) are the two sides of a coin. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-12-05 12:04 |
| #5 N Guard nails it, spot on. After (now) 4 examples of the media affecting the positive outcomes of stunning military victories (Tet Offensive, Kosovo, Somalia, and now, Iraq) and turning the "domestic opinion" of the nation against ANY military action, we should learn from history and forbid "imbedded" reporters. Granted, the MSM will still "report" from their posh hotel lobbies, but at least they won't have any "scare" pics or videos to show. Notice this has already had an effect in another genocide...Rwanda. The world vowed "never again" and yet, here it is, and all you have are professional hand-wringers, BDS sufferers and armchair quarterbacking petition signers fuming over Sudan. Granted, there are plenty of people who are concerned over Darfur for the right reasons, and are willing to do what it takes to stop the bloodshed, but they don't get as much "press" as the MSM, the LLL, the UN, the "Human Rights" groups, et al. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-12-05 10:42 |
| #4 Actualy, any Dhimmi prez in 2009 will be so terrified by the example of W that he or she will not send troops anywhere. Ever. IIRC, the way the military shut down some interventions during the Clinton admin was to demand that they go big, and to scare the bejeezus out of them with images of body-bags. Incidentaly, this is why rummy was so hated by certain types in uniform. He called their bluff, and raised. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-12-05 10:23 |
| #3 Should the Dems gain control of our foreign policy, this problem will get worse. They are fond of sending our troops into harm's way on feel good missions while hamstringing them with rules of engagement that prevent them from effectively killing the bad guys and ending the problem. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-12-05 08:27 |
| #2 That was a very good article. Unfortunately it's only going to get worse in Darfur and many other places. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-12-05 05:17 |
| #1 Writer left out Kosovo, another media-inspired failure. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-12-05 00:23 |