Economist: Fleeing from a bloodbath

[mburbank]

If we, ie. the USA, were a very different country, then yes, we should intervene in the Congo. There is far greater justification for it than there ever was in Iraq, but even under Democratic presidents, we don't make much of an effort to stop African genocide.

If we truly were committed to human rights, we would surely intervene as the attrocities committed there are equal to and greater than even the evils of Saddam.

The country we actually are should not intervene beyond a commitment to working with the players on the ground, and we haven't even done that. The country we are can only concieve of intervention where our direct interests are concerned and so I fear we would only bring more efficient killing, more adroit corruption to the table.

So yes to engagement, no to intervention. We are who and what we are.