An African solution or a U.S. solution to Darfur?

This Washington Post editorial today makes the case for keeping the pressure on in Sudan and focuses on an African solution to the problem:

"Time and again Sudan's dictatorship has proved that it will bend to pressure: It expelled Osama bin Laden, it negotiated peace with the country's southern rebels, and it has improved humanitarian access to Darfur's camps. This time will be no exception, provided that the pressure is sufficient."

"The goal of this pressure must be to build on the small contingent of African Union troops already in Darfur."

The piece also notes U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement to the General Assembly yesterday arguing that deference to soveriegnty ought not be used as an excuse to allow crimes against humanity.

Also in the Washington Post, neoconservatives William Kristol and Vance Serchuk argue that U.S. military intervention in Sudan is inevitable, and should happen sooner rather than later. I'm sympathetic to their point of view, and had we not invaded Iraq, I might agree with them. However, the U.S. military is badly overstretched by the war in Iraq, so U.S. military intervention in Sudan just isn't feasible right now the way it was in the Balkans and would have been in Rwanda. Moreover, I think it's important for the African Union to assert itself in a way that will empower it to intervene in future crises in the region, which would be a long-term benefit to everyone.