Andrew Natsios' article in Outlook illustrates in stark terms much of what has been wrong with U.S. policy since the Darfur genocide began to unfold in 2003. He unwittingly highlights three crucial ingredients of U.S. failure: a misunderstanding the problem; an exaggeration of the importance of the response; and poor execution, particularly on the peacekeeping front.

The first theme -- misunderstanding -- emerges when Natsios describes the situation in Darfur as anarchy. He illustrates his point with a story of refugee revenge that leaves the reader confused about the major cause of violence in Darfur. What U.S. officials do not seem to realize is that anarchy was and remains the very intent of the Sudanese regime's genocidal counter-insurgency policy. The government's divide-and-destroy approach pits community against community, just as Khartoum did in southern Sudan for two decades.

This misunderstanding leads to moral equivalency and even-handedness, and the result is that U.S. policy ends up favoring the orchestrator of most of the violence in Darfur: the Sudanese regime. This emboldens regime officials to continue their destruction of Darfur and obstruct efforts to reverse the crisis.

Which leads to the second theme that emerges in Natsios' article: exaggeration. Natsios claims that Darfurians are widespread in their admiration of the U.S. efforts, to the point where some are naming their babies after George Bush. But the Darfurian refugee and displaced populations I have met over the last few years feel that Bush's repeated use of the term "genocide" raised hopes of assertive American action that has yet to materialize.

It is certainly a credit to the American taxpayer that the United States is leading the way in providing humanitarian aid. However, just as with the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s and the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide in the '90s, the U.S. is providing billions of dollars of humanitarian aid without undertaking the serious diplomatic and military work necessary to confront the horrors that are occurring. It is easy to provide humanitarian assistance from the American breadbasket. It's hard to deal with the causes that make that assistance necessary.

Finally, Natsios article fails to convey how U.S. efforts have only made matters worse in Darfur. Darfurians I have met articulate a few basic demands that must be addressed in any peace deal, including the dismantling of the janjaweed militia and compensation for losses suffered in the genocide. Neither of these was addressed adequately in the peace plan the U.S. tried to ram down the throats of rebel leaders in 2006. Until the U.S. and other putative peacemakers deal with the fundamental issues like these, there will be blood.

It's true, as Natsios argues, that the various rebel factions must come together for Darfur to have a chance. And it is true that many rebel leaders are warlords, and some are war criminals. But travel deep into rebel-held war zones and talk to the rebel rank-and-file, as I have, and you learn that thousands of Darfurians will continue to fight because they believe they are defending their communities from genocide -- and they will fight until a serious peace deal is offered.

President Bush has almost 11 months to make a difference in Darfur. Building on his leadership in brokering peace in southern Sudan, he could create a peaceful Sudan as a positive legacy -- if he acts now.

There are two main areas he could emphasize, beyond existing efforts to get a U.N.-led protection force deployed to Darfur. First, Bush should give Ambassador Richard Williamson, the new envoy to Sudan, whatever he needs to help breathe new life into Sudan's peace efforts, including a full-time team based in the region and renewed efforts to engage the influential Chinese in advance of the Olympics.

Second, Bush should lead international efforts to impose a cost for perpetrating genocide and obstructing help. The United States should press in the U.N. Security Council for targeted economic sanctions against responsible Sudanese officials, engage the European Union to ban euro-based Sudanese oil transactions, and share intelligence with the International Criminal Court to accelerate indictments of Sudanese officials most responsible for continuing violence.

Former President Bill Clinton has said that he remains haunted by his failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That genocide was over in 100 days. Darfur has suffered from a slow-motion genocide-by-attrition for five years. Imagine the regret President Bush will experience if he fails to act now. There is a solution, just like there was in Southern Sudan. The 21st century's first genocide could still be brought to an end on his watch.