I read this editorial in the New York Times on Sunday about Darfur. I was particularly struck by the last paragraph:

"The world’s leaders say they care desperately about Darfur’s suffering. But caring is not enough. What is needed is troops, equipment and a lot more diplomatic pressure on Sudan. The word of the United Nations is on the line, and so are the lives of Darfur’s people."

A few questions jump to my mind:

• What good did UN troops do in Rwanda?
• Are UN troops really the answer as there is a history of despicable actions such as rape on the part of these troops?
• How do we (Americans, Europeans, people of the Western world, etc) decide when we can intervene in places militarily and when we can not?

I find there to be a real disconnect on the part of those who say that we have no right to intervene in Iraq yet think we should intervene in Darfur. And a similar disconnect on the part of those who advocate intervention in Iraq but not in Darfur.

I'm not pretending that there are easy answers or that I have any. Just my observations.