SENATORS John McCain and Barack Obama have commented on the legal and ethical principles around the Darfur crisis, as well as on how the crisis may affect our national interests and regional security. In any event, in January the “small war” in Darfur will start its sixth year of stalemated confrontation involving ideology, ecology, gender, ethnicity, personal ambitions, economics, small arms, water, oil, regional rivalries and colonialism. Are the candidates informed about such dimensions? Polarities and posturing have not worked to date.

After President Bush called Darfur a case of “genocide,” U.S. agencies have provided funding and logistic support for Darfur refugees. Senator Obama traveled to Sudan in 2006 to visit refugees. After that he and Sen. Jack Reed procured $20 million for the African Union forces in Darfur. Yet the joint United Nations-African Union mission in Darfur (UNAMID) has not fully raised the 22,000 troops approved in 2006; only half are there. American diplomats could not bring the Darfur rebels together even when Khartoum signed the now-tattered Darfur Peace Accord.

Senator Obama followed the suggestions of the Save Darfur coalition advocating unilateral “no-fly zones” and possible insertion of U.S. or NATO troops. Where these troops would come from is not clear with so many forces engaged elsewhere. And Senator Obama has condemned President Bush’s “unilateralism” in Iraq and its “no-fly zone.”

Humanitarian relief and peacekeeping forces are transported by plane to Darfur; Khartoum’s military is mostly on the ground; the rebels have no planes. A recent commercial flight in Darfur was hijacked. Rebels have shot down aircraft ferrying aid. A “no-fly” zone needs collaborating air-traffic controllers and critical legitimacy from the African Union, the U.N., European Union and NATO. Without it, there are blow-back risks for other U.S. regional policies. And note that high levels of violence in Darfur in 2003-2004 have declined since 2005.

Senator McCain wants a “no-fly” zone and intelligence gathering for possible prosecutions for war- crimes violations at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which neither the U.S. nor Sudan have signed on to. Senators McCain and Obama stated that Sudan’s government was “chiefly responsible” for the conflict. Yet, the conflict dates to February 2003, when two rebel groups attacked the government. In May 2008 some rebels attacked Omdurman, across the Nile from Khartoum; some turned to banditry and kidnapping. One has an Islamist agenda.

Sudan officially has a government of national unity, including the south, where the comprehensive peace agreement, a major diplomatic success for President Bush, is in jeopardy. It is hard to say the Sudanese government is “chiefly responsible” for that problem.

In 2005 Senator Obama called for “Western nation” advisers to be embedded in the UNAMID forces in Darfur. Senator McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had apparently made no statements about Darfur until last week’s vice-presidential debate. Senator McCain said in a 2006 that the U.S. should ask the E.U. and the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Sudan; already we do not trade with Sudan. Both candidates signed the 2006 Darfur Accountability Act to pressure Khartoum.

In 2008 Senator McCain proposed a “League of Democracies” guided by “Judeo-Christian principles” to address such issues. Many Sudanese are Christian but the U.S. has Muslim allies and citizens, so this might be problematic. He was annoyed with China for denying a visa to the 2008 Olympics to Darfur activist Joey Cheek, the speed skater. China holds billions of U.S. national debt. Supporting McCain, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D.-Conn.) called for extra helicopters. Sen. Joseph Biden (D.-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, proposed sending 2,500 American troops. Apparently Senator Obama concurs. Senators Biden, Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) and Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) introduced a 2007 resolution to deploy an international peacekeeping mission to Darfur, but then and now, there was no peace to keep.

In Berlin this July Obama said “the genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all,” while German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Darfur a “conflict” rather than “genocide.” Senator Obama noted that Armenians were victims of Turkish “genocide,” but this complicates Israel’s alliance with Turkey. Senator McCain criticized Senator Obama for wanting to leave Iraq prematurely, saying it might cause “genocide” there and that al-Qaida might return. Senator Obama countered that al-Qaida went to Iraq because of the Americans there, but what would al-Qaida do with 2,500 U.S. soldiers in Darfur? Would this be a practical application of American diplomatic, informational, military and economic power?

With Democrats having perception problems on military issues, they are more bellicose on Darfur. With Republicans struggling with over-projection of American military power, they are more cautious. Neither spoke about new efforts to unify the rebels, or post-conflict modalities, or models of truth and reconciliation. None reflected much on the misdeeds of rebels or the militias fighting them. Nor did they discuss China, and oil or why the first conflict started. Will the African Union or Arab League capacity-building be undermined by Western forces or “no-fly zones”? Most experts see the essential problem as political, not military. Can the “change” candidates become peace brokers rather than unilateral “peace enforcers”?

Richard Lobban is an adjunct professor of African Studies at the Naval War College. Maj. Christopher Dalton is a Marine Corps supply officer. Their views are their own .