It's worked so well so far.

African Union soldiers have done so well stopping the violence in Darfur that AU president Alpha Oumar Konare is making it clear he expects that only African Union soldiers will make up the U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. I don’t know if this is some sort of “go it alone” statement or a hope that donating troops will mean a UN-based financial windfall for African countries but disengagement of the 1st world in Africa is in no one’s interest. The very best individuals available – which should include very significant numbers of troops from the U.S. – should be the ones doing the job.

Darfur force 'to be all-African'
BBC News

Africa will provide all of the 26,000 peacekeepers to be sent to Sudan's Darfur region, the head of the African Union (AU) has said.

AU chairman Alpha Oumar Konare said enough African troops had been promised for no outside help to be needed but he did not give details.

The UN had expected to call on Asian troops. Critics say Africa lacks enough trained troops for an effective force.

Sudan's government has long opposed the involvement of non-African soldiers.

It only agreed to a joint United Nations-AU force after months of negotiations.

The UN Security Council resolution setting up the force said the troops would be mostly African but they would be under UN command.

Took long enough

The U.N. has finally approved sending a peacekeeping force to Darfur. Three years ago, Colin Powell was at the U.N. doing everything in his power to try to convince the U.N. to take action. How many people would still be alive if they headed his call at that time instead of waiting three years to act?

It's a good thing that Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton don't run the U.N. or else we'd still be waiting.

UN OKs 26,000 Peacekeepers for Darfur
ABC News

The U.N. Security Council approved a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Darfur on Tuesday to try to help end four years of fighting that has killed more than 200,000 people in the conflict-wracked Sudanese region.

The force the first joint peacekeeping mission by the African Union and the United Nations will replace the beleaguered 7,000-strong AU force now on the ground in Darfur no later than Dec. 31. The council urged that the AU-U.N. "hybrid" achieve "full operational capability and force strength as soon as possible thereafter."

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called it a "historic and unprecedented operation" that will send "a clear and powerful signal" of help to the people of Darfur.

At least he's being honest!

You have to give it to Sen. Obama. He's being honest. at least he's willing to step up to the plate and admit that he's cool with an Iraqi genocide.

He is right, though, we absolutely should be intervening in the Congo and in Darfur. Of course, he's saying that sarcastically because he's cool with standing by and hoping you can talk the sick and twisted killers who have murdered hundreds of thousands of Darfuri into stopping. At least, though, you have a Democrat who's willing to stand up and say, "We have the power to stop genocide and frankly it's just not worth it." The moral vacancy of this position notwithstanding, he does get points for honesty.

It's a worthwhile debate and it's sickening that the rest of the democrats - who are either morally vacant or whose ignorance shows unimaginable incompetence - aren't willing to stand up and say that no, it's not worth the lives of a few thousand Americans to ensure that millions or Iraqis or Africans aren't slaughtered.

White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn't Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
Fox News

Sunapee, New Hampshire - Democratic president hopeful Barack Obama said the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is not a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

More help for Darfur...

Relief workers in Darfur are having problems with delivering food aid. Apparently, one-sixth of all aid deliveries are hijacked. The United Nations is aiming to send in troops some time next year. I don't see how 27,000 total troops (20,000 new and 7,000 existing) will be enough. One-third of the population has been displaced, two-thirds need food aid. The situation there is mind-blowingly bad. Whatever needs to be done, has to be done and waiting for the United Nations to get around to sending in troops next year is not acceptable. Piracy of humanitarian aid should not be tolerated and the fact that everyone is acting as though this is business as usual while people are dying is demoralizing, to say the least.

U.N. finally taking action in Darfur

It has taken long enough, but it looks as though at least a few U.N. troops will be going into Darfur. The inaction on this front by the U.N. is criminal.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Sudan on Monday approved the deployment of attack helicopters and more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel in Darfur to beef up the 7,000 strong African Union force in the troubled region.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem informed the secretary-general in a letter that the government had approved the U.N. plan to send helicopter gunships, the last outstanding item in the U.N.'s "heavy support package" for the AU force.

"It is the sincere hope of the Sudan that implementation of the heavy support package would precede expeditiously," Abdalhaleem said.

Sudan's Foreign Ministry confirmed the government's acceptance of the "heavy support" package.