Why has Eric Reeves pushed for military intervention in Darfur knowing humanitarian access will be severed and civilian destruction will be massive?

In his opinion piece June 28, 2006 - "Meaning of Khartoum's suspension of humanitarian access to Darfur" - Eric Reeves says Khartoum's decision to suspend most of the UN's humanitarian operations in Darfur for two days had little to do with the reason offered by the regime. Snippets from the piece:

To be sure, Khartoum's vicious Military Intelligence was angry that the UN moved Jamous without permission. ... Khartoum's action was, in effect, a pointed threat:

"We have the power to shut down humanitarian operations overnight --- and completely. The present suspension was simply a warning, a reminder. But if we are pressed, if our most consequential claims of national sovereignty are ignored, if the UN should demand that we accept a force capable of protecting civilians and humanitarians, then we will respond much more severely the next time."

There should be no doubt about the deadly seriousness of Khartoum's threat, or about the ghastly history that stands as its guarantor.

This apparently technical obstructionism has terribly real consequences for desperately needy human beings. ... Of one thing we may be sure: if war comes, then humanitarian access will be severed altogether, and civilian destruction will be massive.

So, why has Eric Reeves over the last two years relentlessly pushed for military intervention in Darfur? I don't get it, unless he is onside with SLM-Nur. Note, in the piece he criticises the AU, SLA-Minnawi and the Darfur Peace Agreement but not SLM-Nur or JEM. Why would an American academic in Boston, MA, USA who networks with USAID and many others in America and Sudan, fight (with a pen) onside with SLM-Nur? A pen can be mightier than a sword.