If it's really a genocide, then ...

An editorial from Commonweal says that it's fine to call what's happening in Darfur "genocide," but "the word 'genocide' is not enough; we must also accept and respond to the urgency such language implies."

The crisis [in Darfur] is no longer a local land dispute between Arab and non-Arab Muslims. It is systematic ethnic cleansing that threatens the stability of an entire region. The United States must use all its diplomatic resources to force Sudan's leaders into compliance with international law. But that may not be enough. If we are going to keep calling the violence there a genocide, we must be prepared to do whatever we can to stop it, even if this means using force. America’s military, already overcommitted in Iraq and Afghanistan, is in no position to undertake a unilateral intervention, but a small NATO force, with U.S. support, could push back the Janjaweed and establish a no-fly zone over Darfur. Recent events in Somalia have reminded us that the U.S. government is willing to involve itself in African conflicts when it thinks the stakes are high enough, and they could not be much higher than they are in Darfur. Now may seem like an especially bad time to propose yet another military operation, however modest. But if the new cease-fire fails to end the killing, who will tell the people of Darfur to keep waiting? They have been waiting, and we have been watching, for too long already.

So what are we waiting for?