April 29, 2006 journal, Arab Moslem bloodbath in the Sudan African nation kills 200,000. This is what they call peaceful religion. The entire world reeling & rocking with hostilities unreported from people of the Moslem faith. The news media is really protecting militant Arab and Moslem vi*ol*ence world over. The massive refugee camps are camps of death. "The American Prospect-This column was written by Mark Leon Goldberg. In the face of a mounting progressive backlash against the liberals who joined with President B*us*h to help sell the Iraq war, the hawks are fighting for their ideological lives. And as Iraq falls to pieces, what better way to prop up a discredited mantra of a aggressive interventionism than to set your sights on the world's worst man-made humanitarian crisis? Enter the New Republic's Lawrence Kaplan, who penned an April 23 Los Angeles Times co-ed that takes a preemptive swipe at hypocrites like me who urge action on Darfur but are wary of the wisdom of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. According to Kaplan, "We do not understand that like Bosnia before it, Darfur will be saved by onething: American power". Later, he writes of the naive souls who will attend the Washington D.C. "Save Darfur" rally on April 30th of: "So, yes, comfort your sensibilities. Testify to your virtue and good intentions. Offer assurance that your call to action is not a call for the unilateral or the un- provoked exercise of American power. But don't pretend that Darfur will be saved by any thing else". I happen to agree with Kaplan on this latter point. But his understanding of American power is shaped by a career cheerleading for US invasions of foreign countries. Sometimes this has worked out relatively well in Bosnia. Othertimes it has been disastrous in Iraq. Throughout, he and like minded hawks have sold their proposed intervention by setting up a dichotomy whereby one either flavors a U.S. military response to a horrific situation, or supports doing nothing. As a rhetoriccal device, this lets Kaplan claim the moral high ground. But back in the real world, it stifles the kind of creative thinking that is required to confront a humanitarian disaster when military options are limited. Thanks to Kaplan et al.'s eagerness to invade Iraq, which siphoned military resources and attention from Darfur when Sudan launched its genocide. This is precisely the current dilemma.

With no expectations that the 130,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq will be rotated out anytime soon, the bond of requisite number of troops that would be required to pacify Darfur are simply unavailable. But even if it were feasible, it would be neither wise nor prudent to do so. Given the experience in Iraq. There is reason to believe that the U.S. military simply cannot undertake such a task, no matter how noble our intentions. Amer-ican boots on the ground will bolster popular support for the ruling National Islamic front.

They will also inspire Jhidis who have rotated out of the Iraq theater to respond to Os*ma B*en Lad*on's recent call to arms and mount in insurgence against America in Darfur. So what is to be done? Even if the Liberal hawkosphere is loathe to look a number of policy options that are available to the United States, short of sending Marines, that would go a very long way to ameliorating the plight of Darfur. Those of us who call ourselves pro-gressive and consider Darfur a defining moral challenge of the era should familiarize our-selves with some of these prescriptions. Diplomatic pressure -The United States has en- gaged with Darfur more than any other country in the Security Council, but that is not saying much. The B*us*h administration has not yet made punishing the men responsible for the genocide a priority. According to an April 5 Reuders report, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton sought to keep top Sudanese commander's off a Security Council list of individuals to be sanctioned for perpetrating the violence in Darfur. Worship Yahweh!