In the ideal world of the left, sovereign nations would yield to the UN in matters of global security and individual citizens would have no need to arm themselves. And of course, the US would withdraw immediately from the quagmire of Iraq’s civil war.

The ongoing tragedy in Sudan’s Darfur region raises serious questions about both the merits and consistency of that vision.

Senator Joe Biden, who authorized the Iraq War and now wants out, has had another change of heart when it comes to foreign ventures. “I would use American force now,” he said of Darfur. “I think it’s not only time not to take force off the table. I think it’s time to put force on the table and use it.” (Wait. So is force on or off the table? “Bloviating Biden” is famous for using 37 words just to say ‘hello’, but he nearly twisted himself into an Austin Powers-like knot with that one. Allow myself to introduce…)

For someone who wants to pull U.S. forces out of an Arab country torn by four years of sectarian strife, it’s curious that Biden now insists we have a “moral imperative” to send troops into an Arab-run country torn by four years of sectarian strife. On the Sunday talk circuit, Biden said of Iraq, ”The withdrawal would be getting us out of the middle of that civil war…there is virtually no political progress being made…this is a civil war and we shouldn’t be in the midst of it.”

Sounds familiar. Aside from the part about needing to withdraw, he could easily be talking about Sudan.

If Biden’s logic isn’t in the right place, his heart is. With over 2 million people displaced and upwards of 500,000 killed, the situation in Darfur is another shameful display of inaction on the part of the UN. While member states quibbled over whether to call the situation “genocide”, the humanitarian crisis raged like wildfire. Late last year, the Security Council finally passed Resolution 1706, which will send over 20,000 peacekeepers to supplement the current African Union force of 7,000.

The African force has always been, at best, a token gesture. Often going unpaid and clearly undermanned – 7,000 for an area nearly the size of France - its troops have been powerless to stop the violence.

This is reminiscent of Rwanda or Bosnia, where UN troops were not only helpless to stop the genocide, they were often just as likely to be pushed around by the local bullies. In Bosnia’s most appalling episode, a Dutch battalion allowed a massacre in their “safe haven” of Srebrenica, reportedly to secure the release of fourteen of their comrades.

It’s one thing for a peacekeeping force to have trouble containing the situation. But to be subject to the same aggression from which the local populace is supposed to be protected shows how truly flaccid the UN’s military arm has become.

Time will tell if the 20,000 blue helmets will make a difference in Sudan, but the track record is not encouraging. If the people of Darfur think that the cavalry is coming in the form of UN peacekeepers, they will likely be disappointed to find that they are actually getting F-Troop. Which leaves Darfurians at the mercy of the regime in Khartoum. Rather than continue an overt civil war, the Sudanese government unleashed paramilitary bands of nomadic herdsmen called the Janjaweed. Famous for their brutal tactics, the Janjaweed are known to gang rape women in public view - the resulting stigma leaves victims unclean per local culture.

For those who think our own Second Amendment hinges on the “well-regulated militia” clause, let the record show that state-sponsored militia do not always abide by the “well-regulated” guideline. One can assume that the average Darfurian would appreciate having a Glock at his side when a few crazed horsemen come swooping in to have their way with his daughters.

But the Janjaweed are the only ones with the luxury of a firearm.
So the world has watched while the global village elders on the East River decided what to do. Despite the passage of Resolution 1706, it’s clear that conflicts of interest at the UN – China is the leading arms supplier to Khartoum - will always raise questions about the motivation of those involved.

And once the peacekeepers are committed, motivation continues to be an issue. As recent history has shown, ideologically-driven and determined local forces will always have the upper hand over some polyglot grab bag of soldiers, far from home and often crippled by the Barney Fife rules of engagement (one bullet per man, kept safely in the breast pocket).

Yet the left insists that multilateral action, spearheaded by the UN, is the only legitimate kind, even if the end result is inaction. National interests are trumped by this higher power, while personal security is to be sacrificed to the state.

In the sad case of Darfur, however, that vision collides with a stark reality that has destroyed millions of lives.