Watching the Vice-Presidential debate tonight, I nearly fell down as I heard Joe Biden, the Democrat VP nominee, say that Obama wants to get American forces involved in the gigantic festering mess in the Darfur part of Africa.

Before we plunged headlong into the bottomless pit of death and billions of squandered dollars in Iraq, we were all treated to endless series of tales from "W" about all the genocide that Saddam Hussein commited, and now, according to his running mate, Obama is already talking the same way about Africa and getting American troops involved in sectarian, partisan wars in Darfur?

The one demonstrable point of real difference between Obama and McCain (and Bush, too) is that Obama insists that we get the hell out of Iraq as quickly and expediently as possible, and many Americans find merit in that suggestion. But for what? To turn around and get us committed into the vast, horrible quagmire of sectarian and tribal violence in Africa? Is Obama really so naive that he wants to get us out of the Iraq frying pan only to plunge us in the real fire of Africa?

Tell me this isn't so. Tell me that this was just some nonsense that Biden dreamed up because he says weird things in front of microphones. I know that Obama's really nothing much more than a liberal senator from South Chicago, but tell me that anyone deemed qualified to be running for the presidency of the United States has more sense than to suggest anything so stupid as getting us involved in a horrific mess in Africa!

One HUGE difference - the Americans in Iraq is an army of occupation whilst it is an UN-AU peacekeepingforce in Sudan. Obama thus woud not want the Us to invade Sudan, as you have Iraq, but to send troops to help with the peacekeeping there. I'd say that is a massive difference is it not?

Other diferences are that most Sudanese welcome the UN force, that much less US soldiers would be sed to Sudan than to Iraq, and that there is a neasy exist strategy, as the US would be part of a UN from which it is relativly easy to withdraw, like it was from Somalia.

So the two situations can not be compared at all

South Vietnam's leaders invited the USA inside their country back in 1963. Twelve long, miserable years later we were picking the last of our people off the tops of buildings in Saigon with helicopters right before the victorious North Vietnamese Army came rolling into town. The profound understatement is this: these adventures, however well-intentioned in the beginning almost always turn sour and end up being dismal failures.

A clear exception was forcing Saddam out of Kuwait. Oh, yes, the propriety of this action is often debated because Kuwait had actually been a part of Iraq for so many years prior to the arrival of British petroleum engineers, but I'm only looking at it now as a singular example of the USA getting involved in one of these things and not looking like a bunch of fools afterward.

We went in with organization and purpose, skillfully rooted Iraq out of the country, and eliminated it as a threat to anyone thenceforward. It was completely done in less than nine months. Bravo. But nothing of the kind was done in all our other adventures, and a similar foray now into Africa would surely be the biggest and costliest mistake in our history since World War II, which is saying quite a lot.

I remember the phrase that was quoted a lot while Clinton was meddling in the Balkans -- "In for a penny, in for a pound!" And, sadly, it's usually not until we've already gotten into these things up to our earlobes that we realize what a wretched mistake we've made. Obama is young and shallow...he wouldn't remember the tragedy of Vietnam. Biden should remember it well, however, so for him to recommend any kind of African adventure must mean he's even crazier than some of us think he is.