The New York Times editorial page has repeatedly castigated President Bush for his willingness to go to war with Iraq because he continues to believe, as I do, that Iraq failed to account for weapons of mass destruction; that Iraq was an imminent threat to its neighbors and a foreseeable danger to the U.S.; that Saddam Hussein was a vicious despot who had tortured and murdered his own people and his neighbors using poison gas, among other terrible crimes; and that the removal of such a dangerous and oppressive tyrant would promote positive change in the entire region.

The New York Times did not find any of these reasons sufficient for the U.S., Great Britain, and the coalition forces to wage war against Iraq without being authorized to do so by the U.N. So it was a surprise when The Times published an editorial on July 3, advocating unilateral action to relieve the human rights catastrophe in Sudan. Action against the Sudanese government is certainly warranted, but is it more warranted than the action we have taken in Iraq? Relevant excerpts from The Times editorial follow and are well worth reading:

ÒThe growing disaster in the Darfur region of Sudan, which may have already killed as many people as have died in the fighting in Iraq over the last year and a quarter, demands that Secretary of State Colin Powell and the U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan, go beyond the kind of welcome but government-manipulated visits we saw this week. Without tough and immediate actions by Washington and the U.N. Security Council, a half-million people or more could die before the end of the year from Sudanese government-sponsored attacks and the starvation and disease that inevitably follow.Ó

It went on, ÒAny illusion that SudanÕs leaders are now prepared to act responsibly without being compelled to do so should have been dispelled by their cruel and cynical behavior during the Powell and Annan visits.

ÒThe Bush administration has been far too timid in proposing punitive sanctions only for Janjaweed leaders. That remains the main thrust of a Security Council resolution that Washington is circulating. It would be much more effective to put direct pressure on the leaders of SudanÕs government, who can shut down the attacks quickly.

ÒThe Security Council remains divided between the Sudanese governmentÕs critics and apologists and has been unwilling to take strong action.

ÒIf the Security Council still refuses to act, the United States, the European Union and the African countries that assert a claim to continental leadership, like Nigeria and South Africa, should work together to convince SudanÕs leaders that their government will become a pariah if it does not stop what looks increasingly like genocide in Darfur.Ó

If those measures do not accomplish the goal of protecting by some estimates one million people from genocide and thousands from enslavement, is there any doubt that The Times would endorse unilateral military action by the U.S.? I would.