Cowboy Wanted

Three high-ranking Democrats (a congressman and two Clinton appointees, including National Security Advisor Anthony Lake) favor a unilateral American air assault on Khartoum. They point to force having been effectively exercised by Clinton in 1998 and threatened by Bush in 2001. What they don't say is that the perceived threat of unilateral American force has gone down, not up, since our unilateral invasion of Iraq. Knowing that it would be hard to sell another intervention to at least half the U.S. population, Khartoum can throw its weight around in the UN, where patron China protects it from real punishment.

The Democratic trio - can we call them 'Blue Hawks'? - suggest strong measures:

After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it.

And here, the Blue Hawks cite an example of the U.S. going forward without UN support. Kosovo, of course! This isn't entirely partisan memory; Kosovo really is a remarkably good analogue for the situation in Darfur.

Nonetheless, their strategy of getting a UN ultimatum and then enforcing it without the UN seems to be cut from a playbook more recent that Kosovo. Dare I use the I-word?