Im none too familiar with the Clinton failure in Somalia (unless for some reason I am not identifying this correctly - the only genocide situation I remember Clinton dealing with was in Bosnia/Herzegovina), perhaps Im showing my age. However, I dont think you can compare a genocide thats resulted in the death of nearly 100k people and the displacement of nearly a million to the situation in Iraq circa 2001-02. Im not trying to downplay the crimes against humanity that were taking place in Iraq, im just saying that the scale is really completely different.
I wager that we wouldnt lead a coalition into Sudan because we dont have much vested interest in Sudan. Im not going off on a "liberal" tangent and saying that the war in Iraq was for oil, I dont want this thread to deteriorate. Im just saying plainly, we dont stand to gain anything from Sudan by placing a democratic government there. Thats not my opinion, im just relating the facts as I understand them. Im certain we will continue to support the AU and send money to help get the situation taken care of, just dont expect anything more active than that.
Case in point, Chechnya. There has been an on going genocidal movement, but we dont stand to gain much there. (Ill concede that another reason we arent participating is the residual situation with Russia - I doubt they want us marching an army into their country to dispell/settle a situation - especially considering we are one of the main proponents of their current government. It might be seen as a slap in the face.)