Why I Hope for the Sake of the Darfuris Obama is Elected

With the economy failing, much of John McCain and Barack Obama’s second debate was spent arguing over what economic policies would best lift us out of crisis. But there was one question in particular, one that seems to have escaped everyone’s minds, that really frightened me.
Moderator Tom Brokaw asked each of the candidates to define their “doctrines.” In a question probably generated after Vice Presidential candidate/beauty queen Sarah Palin was unable to define the now-infamous Bush Doctrine, Senators Obama and McCain were answering what was not only a debate question but an indication on the future of their presidencies.
Obama answered first. “Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake,” he said. “When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, or national interests, in intervening where possible.”

Let’s take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there’s a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that’s what I intend to do when I’m president.”

This answer is revolutionary in it’s own right. First, he declared the situation in Darfur “genocide.” When doing this, Obama is making it clear: what is going on in Darfur is genocide. We have a moral obligation to stop and prevent genocide. Another significant part of his statements was the link between ethnic cleansing and genocide. Long used as a safe fallback, the term “ethnic cleansing” is often used as a governmental excuse for tough words, but inaction. Obama made clear what was already obvious: The two are one in the same, and they both must be stopped.
McCain, on the other hand, was far different. “The United States of America, Tom, is the greatest force for good, as I said. And we must do whatever we can to prevent genocide, whatever we can to prevent these terrible calamities that we have said never again.” he declared. “But it also has to be tempered with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. That requires a cool hand at the tiller. This requires a person who understands what our – the limits of our capability are.” It gets worse: “You have to temper your decisions with the ability to beneficially affect the situation and realize you’re sending America’s most precious asset, American blood, into harm’s way. And, again, I know those situations.

The security of your young men and women who are serving in the military are my first priority right after our nation’s security.

And I may have to make those tough decisions. But I won’t take them lightly. And I understand that we have to say never again to a Holocaust and never again to Rwanda. But we had also better be darn sure we don’t leave and make the situation worse, thereby exacerbating our reputation and our ability to address crises in other parts of the world.

This answer is disturbing on many levels. First, he didn’t even mention Darfur once, despite practically being prompted by Sen. Obama in his last answer. Worse, he stated plainly that he would continue the government’s disastrous policy of inaction. He attempts to justify his answer by saying “never again.” But he ignores the very definition of these simple words. By avoiding the word “genocide,” McCain avoids the moral responsibility of taking real action. McCain also uses the excuse that ‘we don’t want to make the situation worse.’
This is not a new concept. At a lunch gathering after a speech about the Bosnian genocide in 1993, Elie Wiesel spoke with Peter Tarnoff, the undersecretary for political affairs, begging that the United states liberate some of the concentration camps. Ralph Johnson, the principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs, stated “We’re afraid that if we did try to liberate them, there would be retaliation and the prisoners inside would be killed.” Wisel said quietly, “Do you realize that that is precisely what the State Department said during World War II?” McCain is continuing the lack of action for fear of reprisal.
As an anti-genocide activist, the choice has never been clearer. Was Obama’s answer perfect? Of course not. He did not, for example, take into account that the African Union Peacekeepers are dangerously understaffed and unequipped. Logistical support would not alone solve the problem. Yet he’s on the right track. He’s bringing it up, and with help, could become the first president to take real action to directly end a genocide. With McCain, however, things do not look good for Darfuris. With his inaction, we would once again be hearing the hollow promise of never again.
As a Jew, this is terrifying. Jews know more then anything the dangerous effects of a genocide unstopped. They more than anyone else know the hypocrisy of inaction, the pain of empty promises. In this election, I’m breaking one of the cardinal rules of being an effective lobbyist. I cannot remain neutral with the stakes this high. What is before us are two options. Will we sit idly by while genocide takes place? Or will we rise to the occasion, take a stand, and finally make Never Again active polity, not just empty promises. The choice is ours.