Leave Iraq, intervene in Darfur?

Dallas Morning News | Ted Galen Carpenter and Christopher Preble:

“In the latest Democratic presidential debate, the candidates were united on the need for the United States to withdraw from Iraq. But most were equally convinced about the need to intervene in Darfur. Such an attitude suggests that the Democrats have learned little from the Iraq debacle.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It suggests no such thing. It suggests that the Democrats are the better party to entrust such desisions to in the future. The Republicans are the party of "stay the course", affirming the conventional wisdom that they have learned nothing from the debacle in Iraq. The Democrats are well aware of that debacle and the need to employ a wiser foreign policy. An American intervention in Darfur, led by a Democratic administration, is much less likely to repeat the mistakes of Iraq.

Democrats are more likely to use diplomacy, to rely on the international community, to rally allies and even foes to positively influence the course of events in Darfur. Democrats are less likely to take unilateral, military action, to shut off diplomatic initiatives, to fail to understand that it is much easier to start a war than to end one.

Carpenter and Preble detail all the sins of the Republicans in Iraq and try to pin those sins on Democrats in Darfur. Darfur doesn't have to play out the same way. Given the current choices for the Democratic nomination for President and what those candidates are saying on the campaign trail, it won't play out that way under a Democratic administration. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the Republicans and what that party's candidates are saying about what they've learned about Iraq.