Getting Serious On Darfur?

Wes Clark and John Prendergast have an op-ed in today's Boston Globe discussing a U.S. plan to end genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Also, the Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration is ready to support a larger role for NATO in that troubled region.

Clark and Prendergast have this to say:

His administration has yet to form a united front on Darfur because of competing interests at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. Bush needs to pull together these disparate players and create a real policy to end atrocities, punish human rights violators, and create sustainable peace.

Now that Bush has finally admitted that his administration needs to do better, he should appoint an envoy to harmonize US policy toward Darfur and demonstrate his personal resolve to end the suffering. [...]

Bush needs to ensure an accelerated AU handover to the UN and identify a capable nation to lead a UN-mandated stabilization force to immediately buttress the AU's civilian protection efforts and help secure the border.

Military planners at the Pentagon need to work closely with this lead nation to plan the mission and provide military assets that enhance the force's ability to respond quickly and aggressively to attacks against civilians. [...]

[T]he United States should press much harder for UN Security Council sanctions against government and rebel officials most responsible for the crisis. Properly executed, such a policy would strengthen cooperation from the government of Sudan.

President Bush has opened the door for stronger US action in Darfur. Now it's time for him to follow through by leading a focused diplomatic and military effort to end the crisis.

And this from the aforementioned WaPo article:

The Bush administration has settled on the idea of sending up to several hundred NATO advisers to help bolster African Union peacekeeping troops in their efforts to shield villagers in Sudan's Darfur region from fighting between government-backed Arab militias and rebel groups, administration officials said.

The move would include some U.S. troops and mark a significant expansion of U.S. and allied involvement in the conflict. So far, NATO's role has been limited to airlifting African Union forces to the region and providing a few military specialists to help the peacekeeping contingent. [...]

Plans under consideration envision fewer than 500 NATO advisers. They would be assigned to African Union headquarters units and assist in logistics, communications, intelligence and command and control activities, not engage directly in field operations. The likely number of U.S. advisers has yet to be determined, officials said.

"This is supposed to be a support effort, not a take-over-the-mission effort," said the administration official, whose name and agency could not be identified under terms of the interview. As the reason for insisting on anonymity, the official cited the sensitivity of the internal planning.

For more of my thoughts, go here.