Ground Control to Michael Kleinman

It's always easy to play the critic.

Both Michael Kleinman and I hold different views on how the international community should respond to the crisis in Darfur, which have come into  particularly sharp focus as Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir retaliates against the humanitarian aid community after being indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Healthy debate is always a good thing.

But I take particular exception to Michael's post last night lambasting Nicholas Kristof --- who made several suggestions for an international response in an op-ed yesterday --- by saying that he "just doesn't get it."

Michael seems to assume that in suggesting particular responses to the ongoing atrocities in Darfur, that Kristof, along with the rest of the policy advocacy community, thinks that some magic button can be pushed to bring an easy end to the conflict with no possibility of unexpected consequences. And in what is this assumption grounded? The fact that Kristof didn't list all of the possible consequences? It's an op-ed piece in a newspaper, not a comprehensive policy brief.

And after taking the advocacy organizations (in particular, ENOUGH) to task for a lack of specificity in their recommendations (another assumption, which a look through their website would've shown to be unfounded), Michael responds to ENOUGH's response to him (hello, convoluted sentence fragment) by saying that he appreciates the recommendations, but is "not sure that these actions will actually make a difference."

Ok, then, what would you have us do? Nothing? You either shoot down or disregard every option presented without coming up with an alternative of your own --- and you assume that no one is fleshing out the list of hypothetical consequences for any particular action, but that's all it is: An assumption. And speaking from the perspective of someone who works on the issues everyday, I can tell you, with authority, that it's a baseless one.

But perhaps even more importantly, what are the hypothetical consequences for your alternatives? If we give Bashir what he wants --- a suspension of the ICC indictment --- what makes you so sure that he will suddenly become more cooperative? Bashir had over SEVEN MONTHS to show the international community that he was committed to peace, but as he went on an international media charm campaign to push for a suspension of the ICC investigation, he was busy escalating violence in Darfur --- from attacking IDP camps to violating his own ceasefire two days after it was announced. This is not a man known for sticking to his word. Even more, the conflict was escalating and the humanitarian situation was deteriorating even before the ICC drama began in July, with no apparent opening for any kind of way out, messy or otherwise.

We should've taken harsher measures years ago --- we didn't, and the conflict and the humanitarian crisis have worsened. Anything that anyone does in this scenario is fraught with complications, and to suggest that people are not weighing the options --- that we view the world in black and white, rather than shades of gray, that we don't know that this is messy anyway it goes --- is completely untenable.

We debate these issues frequently in a passionate but friendly manner, but you're crossing the line when you write with a tone that suggests that we don't care as much about the people on the ground in Darfur as you do.