I think this provides another opportunity in which we must consider the paradigms that frame our politics. Why must we always try to solve problems through military measures? Many suggest economic sanctions are an alternative. While in theory that could be true, I think we should learn a lesson about sanctions after the intermission between the two Iraq wars. Now, I'm going to show my lack of understanding of geopolitics, but it's my understanding sanctions are out because China has vested interest (surprise--oil!) in blocking sanctions on Sudan and can block any movement towards them thanks to its veto power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Thus, I think the concept of acting through NATO is to be applauded as innovative diplomacy, if you will, but why must the answer still lie in who will send troops where? This is another of those situations in which I might consider myself a pacifist*--the asterisk indicating that threat of force might be used for some good. However, I find the situation dripping in irony in that, while urging for NATO action, the American government refuses to send its own troops. But isn't this about liberation and freedom on the march too? Or does that only apply to countries from whom we might receive cheaper oil? Something tells me that risking another Mogadishu, likely are cause of reticence for deploying American troops to Darfur, would be a risk more worth taking in the eyes of the US government were Americans likely to fill up their Hummers for ten bucks less as a result.