Sagepaper

After the Holocaust, we said, "Never again." After Cambodia, we said, "Never again." After Bosnia, we said, "Never again." After Rwanda, we said, "Never again." It appears we will have another chance to say, "Never again." It appears we will not be saying, "Not this time." The world has not intervened swiftly and effectively in Sudan.

I'm thinking some blame rests with an unlikely culprit. The humanitarian NGO's might be contributing to this lack of military response. Their public relations campaigns are aimed at getting funding, not at promoting compassion.

We have been told a number of times, "Feed the Sudanese NOW or they will die by the hundreds of thousands." We have been told, "Send medical and public health infrastructure NOW or tens of thousands will die of disease." Then we hear, "Send troops NOW or they will die by the hundreds of thousands in a genocide."

Now, I'm going to sound mean, and I don't like that. The truth is, my knee-jerk reaction is harsh. If these people keep dying like that, long hideous deaths by starvation and disease, why not allow a coup de gras? Why go spill our blood to save the souls of the damned? It's not like it ultimately makes much difference, if we are to believe the humanitarian organizations. In fact, it sounds like dying in a genocide might be a kinder, gentler death.

Let's say we do go, just to prove we meant it when we said, "Never again." Let's say we go in enough force to put a swift stop to it, and manage to 'minimize' casualties on the part of the intervention force, and on the part of the government. From Rwanda, we learn, that the impending arrival of foreign troops will perhaps result in an intense increase in genocide activity, as the genocidaires want to finish the job while they still can.

Let's say we then put a stop to the whole thing. There are still Sudanese alive, and we feel great that we kept our word. We impose some sort of peace agreement and install an interim government, and leave peacekeepers there so all will be well.

Next, let's suppose we don't have them dying in heaps and piles in IDP camps, but rather swiftly resettle them to their farms. Let's even suppose that there are not landmines in the fields they will till. Still, we know that they end up about to starve by the hundreds of thousands periodically. Then, they are moved close to food depots where disease runs rampant, and they die by the tens of thousands.

How many of them are there anyway? How can they take casualties like that? These are things the First World has trouble understanding. We simply don't have the population density of Third World countries. The whole thing sounds hopeless.

I think that is in part because the humanitarian NGO's don't spend precious money advertising success. Success doesn't bring in immediate donations. Those NGO's are good at delivering humanitarian assistance, and at acquiring the necessary funding for their activities.

They cannot call in fire power, however, despite the fact that they are often in the best position to observe developments and needs. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the NGO's operate independently, and do not want any authority over them. Second, they have a mindset that weapons can only kill, they cannot save lives. Third, they know nothing about military operations, and what would be required to deploy forces.

Let's say you didn't have the nightmare of working with the UN or other international organizations, and you had one powerful nation willing to deploy immediately. There would be problems the NGO's either can't anticipate, or don't want to manage. It's much easier to dump crates of grain and blankets and bandages from a helicopter in a dangerous area than it is to drop Marines into the same place. Among other things, it's okay if half the crates don't make it to their intended destinations. The same is not true of Marines.

NGO's use escalating announcements to get the world's attention. Some of that is overcoming their own reticence, and some of that is the result of a deteriorating situation. By the time they holler, "Genocide," it's too late to save most of the victims.

In Rwanda, 800,000 people died in 100 days. (Some estimates put the level well over a million.) Most of the killings happened in the first part of the genocide, and there were fewer and fewer murders per day as the genocidaires combed empty land for more victims to kill.

So, back to the Sudan. What we know about the Sudanese is that they are very creative in finding new ways to die. We know they have a tendency to starve. There are a variety of causes for their famines, though, so it's not the same old thing if they are skeletal again. Please send food. They have a variety of diseases to die of, also. I guess the most common would be cholera. So now these highly resourceful "diers" have come up with a new method. They are dying in a genocide.

The NGO's do all they know how to do. They appeal directly to First World populations. We, in our living rooms, are not indifferent. We simply are being confronted with something beyond our capacity to handle. Money won't stop a genocide, so there's no 1-800 number to call to donate by credit card. Hand-me-down clothes won't help. There's nothing much in the garage. You could maybe send them a .22 and a box of ammunition, but the NGO's won't distribute that. (Besides, they always downplay the presence of combat-age males.) So, it's a real shame, but we just don't have anything to offer.

Most of these NGO's don't even understand the efficacy of a letter-to-your-congressman campaign. If they did understand that, they would have to say the word, "Genocide," far sooner. Added to that, the NGO's come from a wide array of countries. Each NGO is likely to turn to its own country.

Another problem NGO's create is discouraging at-risk populations from taking-up arms and defending themselves. Many of them are small religious outfits run by people devoted to the peaceful and humane aspects of their faith, or they wouldn't be there. Some of the larger, less naive organizations have different reasons to discourage armed self-defense. One argument is that they need to be clearly seen as the victims for anyone to intercede on their behalf, since noone wants to wade into a murky civil war.

Other groups want to preserve their efficacy in other crises. They do not want to become known as having anything to do with armed conflict. They hold to that policy to make sure their people are always seen as non-combatants. They also do it to avoid future controversies and criticisms about which group they exhorted to arms.

The NGO's so value their independence that they often will not cooperate in the delivery of humanitarian aid. They certainly are not prepared to make a joint statement, pooling their intelligence, and making a forceful case to the UN or to the Security Council members. They rarely even have the foresight to arrange their own evacuations, and often have to be herded out by a non-NGO entity.

Maybe we should not rely so heavily on the NGO's for human intelligence. Yet, with a shortage of human intelligence hampering the US, it is hard to imagine permanently placed assets in each area where people might find a way to die. The UN has some capability, but is not well organized internally. Beyond the bureaucratic difficulties inside the UN, there is a problem with partisanship. Every nation who is a member of the UN has an interest in what the UN might do in it's own backyard.

So, what do we do? Alas, I am not that wise. It seems to me that one thing we could do is have the humility to stop saying, "Never again," until we sort out a way to keep that promise.