Considering his constant screeching about United States intervention in other countries I find it interesting that Jack McMillin so readily supports military action against Sudan. Surely he has learned from the humanitarian debacle in Somalia and is not so naive as to blithely assume the locals will welcome the white knights of the UN with open arms. Coupled with the reigning regime’s vehement opposition to anything that might jeopardize their genocidal ambitions it’s clear the only foreseeable result would be a full-scale war with Sudan – and ultimately US-led military occupation of the region. Does this sound familiar? As with Iraq, there will be both military and civilian casualties, and the talking heads of the mass media will constantly second-guess the merits of our involvement in another war happening ‘over there’ in a naturally unstable region.

This is not to say that we should not involve ourselves in the Darfur crisis, as it is indeed a just and noble cause. Rather, it is to say that such actions precipitate consequences which must be understood and carefully considered for a meaningful discussion of the topic. All too often – particularly regarding Sudan – human-rights advocates reference vague idealistic buzzwords and feel-good euphemisms with little thought as to the practical (and usually unpleasant) means and results of carrying them out. The world as a whole does not govern itself by parliamentary procedure – student petitions, Congressional decrees and UN resolutions are worthless scraps of paper without money, manpower and munitions to back them up.

Stuart Warren

Senior in Engineering