Blaming Bush.

C'mon guys, I know you have a burning need to blame everything on President George W. Bush, but claiming that his unilateral actions in Iraq have prevented the world from doing anything in Sudan is pretty ludicrous. The world refused to do anything about Sudan long before Bush was president. You can't blame him for this mess.

GERRY GILLESPIE

Meriden, Conn.

The editors reply:

Nowhere does our editorial blame President George W. Bush for the "mess" in Darfur. On the contrary, we put the onus squarely on the Sudanese government, and praise the Bush administration for drawing the UN's attention to the disaster. That said, the U.S. response has been hesitant and tardy, in part because of Washington's weakened credibility and lack of focus following the invasion of Iraq. This has not "prevented" others from acting in Sudan; but lacking U.S. leadership, the situation has become a humanitarian disaster. The recent visit of Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region is welcome, but it came only after increased domestic pressure.

The thrust of Colonel Krieger's argument is that without massive infusions of U.S. troops and logistical support, little can be done in Darfur. We disagree. Military intervention is only the last of a series of options, including UN sanctions. But even then, only small forces could prove significant. A scant two hundred U.S. troops deployed to Liberia last year helped to end the brutal civil war there. Renewed diplomatic relations with Sudan's neighbor Libya (one of the Bush administration's signal foreign-policy achievements) suggests potential access to Darfur. Nor is Sudan unaware of the potential for U.S. missile strikes, or the increased presence of U.S. military personnel in East Africa following the bombing of two U.S. embassies there and 9/11. Urging action does indeed imply accepting consequences. But not acting in Darfur will spell disaster for hundreds of thousands.