Darfur: Apparently, too much for Bush to handle...

Or even try to handle. But what about the future?

The war in Darfur -- referred to some, including the United States, as a genocide -- began in February of 2003. Since then, more than 2 million people have been forced from their homes (one third of the people); as many as 400, 000 people have been killed; and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, has called the Darfur Conflict "the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe." Yet no matter how bad the conflict/war/genocide seems to get, President Bush is still reluctant to actually do anything.

Yet what can Bush really do? Attempting to remain in control of the situation in Iraq is hard enough to, not to mention our endless domestic problems that could use some attention, such as education, stem cell research (he cut medical research spending), and health care. It appears that Bush is too preoccupied to really give Darfur that much attention; although he says that he has a firm, heartfelt commitment to the continent of Africa," there is only a slow deployment of UNAMID (the peacekeeping force scheduled to reach full deployment over three months ago), and for President Bush, the "only alternative to this was not sending any U.S troops at all."

Meanwhile, many organizations, such as Save Darfur, are calling for a stronger leadership from Bush. Save Darfur applauds Bush for at least doing something, which is more than what many other world leaders and countries are doing (including China, who has major oil ties with the Sudanese government and is therefore doing nothing to stop the genocide). The good news is, there is hope (at least for the U.S's involvement). Both presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have both gotten "A+" ratings from "Darfur Action Ratings for Presidential Candidates in Congress," while John McCain got a B (not horrible, considering there was also a C, D, and F). All I can say is, thank goodness for 2009!