In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens sees the solution to Zimbabwe and Darfur. Apparently it all proves the wisdom of George W. Bush --
A solution for Zimbabwe's crisis isn't hard to come by: Someone – ideally the British – must remove Mr. Mugabe by force, install Mr. Tsvangirai as president, arm his supporters, prevent any rampages, and leave. "Saving Darfur" is a somewhat different story, but it also involves applying Western military force to whatever degree is necessary to get Khartoum to come to terms with an independent or autonomous Darfur. Burma? Same deal.
With troop strength currently hanging by a thread in Afghanistan, there is not a hint in his column about where the manpower for these operations would come from. There's no point in praising a "Bush Doctrine" approach to these problems when the doctrine never did anything to mobilise resources.