What makes genocide in Darfur more heinous is that there is no prospect to prevent and stop it anytime soon. No hope, no choice, no chances, no escape, no nothing. Nietzsche once said that man would rather will nothingness than will nothing.
It is in the light of this Nietzschean attitude that the two American thinkers, one from the left, the liberal political philosopher Michael Walzer and, one from the right, the Senior Fellow Researcher Max Boot, have forcefully argued for sending a private army comprised of mercenaries, such as Blackwater, to stop the killing in Darfur, since “neither the United Nations nor nato has any intention of deploying a military force that would actually be capable of stopping the Darfur genocide,” wrote Walzer.
About two years earlier, Boot insisted, “If the so-called civilization nations of the world were serious about ending what the U.S. government has described as genocide, they would not fob off the job on the U.N. They would send their own troops. But of course they’re not serious. At least not that serious. But perhaps there is a way to stop the killing even without sending an American or European army. Send a private army,” wrote here.
As far as I can tell, to call for an idea on political matters of this magnitude, without a plausible possibility for it to be materialized, as is the case with the idea of Blackwater going to Darfur, is tantamount to ask for nothingness. Similarly, to expect the U.N. to do something about Darfur is as naive and simple as calling for Ghostbusters to help.
But, here again, I am not saying that Walzer and Boot are mistaken in asking for action. I am speaking from Walzer’s and Boot’s side, believing also “doing something is better than doing nothing.” But that something needs to be a plausible proposition, if we were serious about ending the genocide.