What does warmongering 'humanitarian' Eric 'disingenuous' Reeves want for Darfur and Sudan, does he (or anybody else) know?

Eric Reeves certainly has a way with words (its how he makes his living, he's a professor of English) but his arguments and rationale sound cracked - and dangerous. Unless I've missed something, it seems to me the Darfur Peace Agreement is the only way to get adequately equipped peacekeepers in Darfur with a mandate to protect - and get warring parties to discuss and agree a ceasefire and disarmament, not to mention the start of building bridges of trust. So why does Eric Reeves denigrate and undermine such a historic step, and go out of his way to foment distrust?

Note this excerpt from Global Voices Online May 10, 2006:

"SudanReeves writes a critical assessment of the recent Darfur agreement (Abuja Peace Agreement)

... The Abuja agreement is little more than another request to trust a regime that has never abided by any agreement with any Sudanese party-not one, not ever. And it asks the survivors of genocide to accept the promises of genocidaires rather than providing the meaningful security they so desperately need."

I say, he sounds as uncompromising as the two rebel factions that are refusing to join the peace deal - which makes me wonder about his motives [click here to read what supporters of the dissident rebel faction SLM/A are demanding - they don't want much overnight eh? crazy!]

What does warmongering "humanitarian" Eric disingenuous Reeves want, does he (or anybody else) know? To overthrow the regime in Khartoum? To split up the Sudan? Why doesn't he say? What is the aim of his propaganda? Military intervention in the Sudan would result in all aid workers being immediately dismissed from the country. How will aid be delivered and reach those most in need? Who will invade, how much will it cost, who will pay for it, how many years of occupation? He doesn't say.

What comes out of Khartoum these days seems less disingenuous than much of what comes from Eric Reeves' naive perspective. It seems to me, people outside of Darfur (including the rebel leaders with bases in Europe) who have jumped on the Darfur bandwagon all appear wanting to make a name for themselves - whether it's words to sell, careers to further, positions and power to gain or books, articles, speeches to write and photo opportunities.

If they are such "concerned peace loving humanitarians", why not focus on DR Congo and northern Uganda where far worse things are happening than in Darfur right now - instead of pushing to make war on the Sudan with the aim of overthrowing the current regime in Khartoum, and risking setting the tinder box of Africa alight. It's about time journalists started getting to grips with Eric Reeves and printing rebuttals to his rants. He's a one man propaganda machine that makes Americans appear naive and puts them (and their Government) unfairly in a bad, warmongering light.

UPDATE: May 27, 2006 - Eric Reeves now makes clear what he wants: Eric Reeves says only NATO military action can save Darfur