As the words "Darfur" and "Sudan" seem to be in the news increasingly, I've been thinking about the notion of whether purely humanitarian military intervention is ever justified, at least in context.

One author, Charley Reese, says no. I respect his position, certainly. I'm very biased against war, but I wonder about this one.

To say that people like George Clooney are hypocrites on the subject has some truth, I suppose. I don't personally feel I, however, need to strap on a gun and go to Africa to be for some kind of intervention to stop killing is necessarily hypocritical.

To say that Darfur is "none of our business," there I cannot agree. For me, genocide and suffering are everyone's business. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's appropriate to intervene militarily, of course. It may well not be.

To say that intervening in Darfur would be unconstitutional seems patently false. The ability to declare and wage war seems unbounded by the Constitution, near as I can tell. I may not LIKE that, but there it is.

Reese makes excellent points about the US's propensity to behave like a bull in a china shop. There are, of course, lots of reasons NOT to get involved militarily in Sudan.

Neither pro nor con at this point on Darfur, but I for one view a prospective action in Darfur as substantially different than the action in Iraq. And, substantially different in yet another way than the action in Afghanistan, which I support.

-Robert Capozzi