Sudan

Like many Democrats, I fully support military and financial assistance to Sudan with or without UN consent to help stop the genocide.

But unlike many Democrats, I also supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

What is the material difference between Sudan and Iraq? That is, why would one support stopping genocide in Sudan and not support the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Point 1: In Sudan there is an ongoing genocide and Iraq there was not. Fair point. But in Iraq there had been prior acts one could easily consider genocidal, ie the mass killing of Kurds and Shiites. Does that mean military force should only be used to prevent genocides and not punish past ones or prevent likely future ones? Is this a wise use of resources? Do we wait until the genocide is occuring to step in? I'm not sure. Is that the argument Democrats are making? Is this a basis for a humanitarian-based (as opposed to interested based) foreign policy?

Point 2: Iraq is a strategically important country, Sudan is not. In short, it matters to the United States what happens in Iraq as a keystone state in the Middle East. In Sudan, so long as they aren't actively harboring Al Queda (as they were in the past), there is little to no material effect to US whether a genocide occurs or not. Sure, it rubs our conscience wrong, but so should most things that go on in various parts of the world.

If one believes we should use the military in Sudan, it follows that we should've done the same with Iraq many times in the past. But most Dems seem to believe we should step in Sudan and NOT step in with Iraq. It's almost as if they believe we should only step in places where we DON'T have an interest to prove our motive is good.

There is something troubling about that point of view.