I was reading Barbi's excellent posts on Darfur over at Night Bird's Fountain (if you get a chance they are worth reading.)
The international community has apparently reached the point of 'donor fatigue' and is no longer prioritizing Darfur. Also there is supposed to be progress on reaching an agreement, but we know those things often fall apart at the last minute, or there is an agreement but it is not honored.
First, let's be clear about 'donor fatigue.' Less than $750 million has been raised to deal with the region, and about $188 million of this has come from the United States. Keep in mind that we spend over $200 million in Iraq each day. Let's also note that the E.U. has given nothing, other than about $1.2 million that is specifically from Italy. In fact, the $188 million, as weak as it was, leads all other nations.
Second, let's talk about what we should do about it.
I don't believe a military solution is the answer. We would get stuck fighting more radical Islamicists ourselves and it could never end (like Iraq). We know that charging into a country with our weapons out and no specific exit strategy is a recipe for disaster, so let's not do it again.
I also don't believe that we should turn a blind eye (as much of the world is) to the suffering of millions of refugees and victims. We should certainly provide humanitarian aid.
But the other thing we must do is this: provide each family who may be subject to ethnic cleansing with at least an old rifle and a few rounds. True some of these weapons could and most certainly would end up being used by combatants (I wasn't born yesterday, I know that many of them would), but that is why I suggested an old rifle with limited ammunition. Not a particularly useful military weapon, but adequate for individual or home defense.
And that leads to the real reason why this would be the best option to end genocide. Genocide is a very labor intensive job, with people having to go find, capture and either murder, or transport victims for murder someplace else. If there was a chance that each household was armed, then it would simply not be worth it for a small rag-tag army (or even a repressive government fighting a civil war) to risk losing fighters in ones, twos and threes in order to drag the people in homes out and murder them. In fact, I believe that this idea (lightly arming victims or potential victims) would probably stop pretty much all genocides for the same reason. Both that reason, and also the reason that it would make genocide much less attractive for a rebel army or for a government even if they could do it without suffering any casualties, if they knew for a fact that their victims (who are their 'enemies') would start getting free weapons as soon as they started in with the butchering.
And yeah, this does sound like an NRA solution, but it's logical and I don't care whether the NRA would propose it or not (especially since I am, as a matter of fact a supporter of second amendment rights-- about the only issue where I often agree with Republicans). Extreme acts like genocide call for an extreme response, but it is possible to respond without invading or unnecessarly endangering Americans.