Darfur/Iraq

Something I do not really understand is why us liberals are so willing to support Darfur and so not willing to support Iraq. My opinion is that both places are in dire needs of help. I do not really see the difference between the two situations. But allow me to posit a guess or two as to what is going on here.

My guess is that liberals so equate Iraq with President Bush. That is almost a fair statement. He has made a royal mess of the place. And I think they think being in support of American intervention in Iraq means being in support of President Bush. I can mean this but it doesn't have to. There are ways to get around this big liberal hangup.

Obviously President Bush and his followers do not know how to handle the situation in Iraq. They never did. They did not have a plan for what to do after Saddam's government fell. I always thought that that part would be easy, especially since we have the most powerful military machine ever. What was to come after would require more nuance. A nuance that is still lacking all these years later.

But the choices available should not be limited to either "we stay in Iraq and follow President Bush's plan" or "we leave." Life is way more complicated than that. What about "staying in Iraq but not following President Bush's plan"? What about "coming up with a whole new plan"? This is also a choice. A choice that I don't ever hear people mentioning.

As to what this plan should be, I have no idea. But what about getting Iraqi experts and Iraqis themselves in a room together and not letting them leave until they have something that we can work with? Seriously, it can't be worse than the incompetents we currently have running the show.

The upshot here? Darfur definitely needs our help. But so does Iraq. We are Americans. Let us think big again.