Lots of well-intentioned folks are urging us to “do something” about the crisis in Darfur. And, heaven knows, there’s a lot of bad stuff going down. Just recently it was reported that the UN had to cut its rations to refugees there due to inadequate funding. That seems like something that could, and should, be remedied relatively easily by an influx of cash.

But there’s something a little troubling to me about some of the rhetoric, the talk of “saving” Darfur, as if all we, as enlightened westerners, have to do is go in there and straighten things out. Let’s recall that our history of going into troubled spots around the globe and successfully straightening things out is a mixed one, to put it mildly. Given our success at creating peace and brotherhood in Iraq (Kosovo, Somalia, etc.), maybe Sudan should be spared our ministrations.

And, almost inevitably it seems, we end up, in our zeal for separating every conflict into good guys and bad guys, siding with some pretty dubious characters (see, inter alia., our interventions in Central America and Afghanistan in the 80s and Kosovo in the 90s). Clearly the civilians being attacked are innocent, but if we intervene are we going to be forced to broker some sort of arrangement between the government and the various rebel groups, who no doubt come in various degrees of unsavoriness? Are we going to be picking winners and losers in the new Sudanese order? And what happens when the winners we pick start in with their human rights abuses? Not to mention the U.S.A. in particular should be wary of opening yet another front in the Muslim world; apparently Osama bin Laden is already calling on mujahedin to get ready to smite the “crusader plunderers” in Sudan.

I’m not saying that the U.S. should do nothing. For one thing, there do appear to be options short of military action. But if intervention is on the table, I would at least like to know straight up what exactly is being called for. A “peacekeeping” mission only makes sense if there’s peace to be kept. Otherwise let’s be honest and call it war. Are we willing to fight, if necessary, the government militias, and perhaps the Sudanese government itself? Are we talking regime change? Followed by occupation? How many troops do you suppose it would take to “pacify” all of Sudan, geographically the largest country in Africa (and more than twice the size of Iraq)?

Just asking.