Guest - well, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. And I agree it's a very complex & very serious problem. / Call me cynical if you will, but as to my misinterpretation, here's your sequence that has left me somewhat confused:

1. "--and of course the US response to the conflict is that the US
must invade Zimbabwe..."

and,

2. "...the US response was, again, reactionary and unilateralist...I think that sort of posturing needs to be taken seriously, if we are to prevent another Somalia from happening in Zimbabwe."

but then,

3. "Right now, the US isn't in a position, much less a mindset, to intervene and commit troops to see the food aid delivered."

So -- is it your fear that we will invade and compel delivery of the aid AFTER we've finished up destroying Iraq -- while still stiffing the UN on our dues even though the Security Council is now supposedly in our pocket?? (I agree with you about the dues btw)

Look, G., you seem a sincere & thoughtful person. **What would you do now** to save Zimbabwe? Seriously. What's the right thing TO do; as distinguished from the things *NOT* to do? I, honestly, don't know. Tell me. Really.

PS: 4. "But apparently you'd prefer we just sweep the story right back under the rug where you feel it belongs?" No. You misinterpreted me. Of course it doesn't belong under the rug. My point was: it wasn't there in the first place. There've been many news stories about it regularly. / But still, thank you for calling it to our attention. To mix metaphors, it does belong on the front burner. It's a catastrophe.