Kerry Balks at Sending Troops to Sudan

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry says he would not send U.S. forces to stop the genocide in Sudan if they continued to be needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I'd do everything possible," he said in a taped interview broadcast Thursday night on Black Entertainment Television, citing logistical support and money to help the African Union intervene in the Sudanese crisis.

Asked whether he'd send troops, Kerry said the United States would "have to be in a position in Iraq and Afghanistan" to allow that to happen. He said his options as president would be limited because President Bush has overextended U.S. forces.

"Our flexibility is less than it was," he said. "Our moral leadership is not what it ought to be."

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-kerry-sudan,0,3649725.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. If Sudan is in need of help, where is the U.N.?

Nobody wanted the U.S. to be the world's policeman. So it's time for them to put up or shut up.

[Maple]

5. Who do you think the UN is?

It's not an autonomous body you know. It's a committee.

They can't do anything without full committee approval.

The US is on that committee.

[TheFarseer]

14. I think it's interesting

that bush was all fired up to stop a relatively dormant humanitarian crisis is Iraq but hasn't done a damn thing to stop one that is boiling over in Sudan. Which is not necessarily to say that I would want to send in US troops. The republicans are right that the UN is fairly useless now a days for stopping violence and such but that's only because they made it that way.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. The committee can operate without the U.S.'s approval.

If they're sitting around waiting for the U.S. to give them their cue then it isn't much of an autonomous body. They know the U.S. is already spread too thin and that they'll have to go to other countries to resolve the Sudan or other scrimish.

It certainly would bolster their credibility in the world if they could handle it on their own.

[Maple]

2. The world is full of trouble spots

Many of them far worse than Sudan.

You can't help all of them.

This is what the UN is for.

Support it.

[Amigust]

10. Sudan is the worst humanitarian crisis now in the world

or has that changed in the past few weeks?

[gottaB]

12. That assessment was reiterated by Jan Pronk on the 5th of October

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8206.doc.htm

The wpf managed to feed 1.3 million people last month, which is a wonderful achievement. However, as the violence and displacement continue, the number of people in need of food assistance continues to grow. The latest UN humanitarian assessment, which is several weeks old, predicts that 2 million people will need food assistance in the month of October.

http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/humanassist.htm

The human rights crisis is still dire. The UN High Commisioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbor, in her report to the Security Council on the 4th of October, reiterated the validity of the findings submitted in the Ramcharan report last May. She summed up:

In conclusion, as we are all painfully aware, the crisis in Darfur has been ongoing for far too long. Despite our efforts so far, we must acknowledge that there are many in Darfur whom we have not been able to protect and who are still in grave peril. The Darfur crisis will remain with us for some time. It is too big in scale, and too complex in nature, to disappear any time soon. The task today is to assist the people of Darfur in rebuilding their lives without fear.

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/50251D159B067E1EC1256F230036D0CE?opendocument

On the 24th of September, Kofi Annan said:

The tragedy in Darfur is one of the greatest challenges the international community faces today. The whole world is watching this tragedy unfold, and it is watching us. No one can be allowed to sidestep or ignore their responsibility to protect the innocent civilians.

Our urgent task is to do everything we can to help protect the people of Darfur from further humanitarian suffering, terrible violence, and human rights abuses, and to bring their agony to an end.

The humanitarian emergency in Darfur is growing, and much, much more needs to be done to mitigate it. I take this opportunity to reiterate my strong appeal to the international community to respond urgently and generously to the humanitarian appeal for Darfur.....

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sgsm9502.doc.htm

There are of course other great challenges facing the international community. The view that Darfur represents the worst humanitarian crisis in the world is not without merit.

[codegreen]

3. "Balks"??? that is a total mischaracterization. he said at the debate

if we needed to we would because we could never allow another Rwanda.

KILL THE MEDIA

[pfitz59]

4. No $. No manpower.

US cannot police the world. If our soldiers weren't bogged down in Iraq we might muster enough force to spearhead a UN mission, as it is we're way over extended! Kerry is correct.

[Rabelais]

6. Kerry doesn't have basic math skills

....pull out of Iraq and you magically have the numbers of troops to HELP the people who NEED it.

[Maple]

7. Kerry can't pull out of Iraq

[sandnsea]

8. That's what he said

I watched that interview. He said the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan make it difficult to send US troops to Sudan. But he would definitely lead on Sudan, send money and provide logistical support to the African Union, and depending on the situation in Iraq, try to send troops. "balks" isn't anywhere near accurate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Indeed he does for our options are limited

by the troop numbers.

[Eugene]

9. Kerry offers exactly what is asked for.

The African Union has the troops.
They seek logistical help from
the world powers to deploy them fast
enough and a mandate from the
Security Council to act.

The most important thing America can
contribute is leadership.

"Balk" is a very unfair characterization.

[JI7]

13. it's not really about needing American troops as much as

getting the Arab League to pressure Sudan. the troops can come from other nations.

[lakemonster11]

15. Well yeah.

That's why the president shouldn't overextend our armed forces by invading countries left and right. The US needs its troops in reserve in order to deal with real crises as they emerge. Kerry's reaction is only reasonable.

[Tom Kitten]

17. why blame Kerry for this

he ain't the president ask BUSH why nothing has been done...ask Colin Powell for chrissakes! They should be doing something through the UN now!

[Peanut Gallery]

18. headline suggestion

"Kerry: obstacles would hinder Sudan troop deployment"... Too long, but something like that.

The current headline makes it sound like Kerry is in a position to send troops, and it doesn't take into account that he said he would have to pull troops from elsewhere or that does want to try to find ways to aid in the crisis.