Ruthlessness, intimidation and aggression. All of these words produce mostly negative connotations in our minds, because they describe traits that often apply to what is cruel or unjust. That is why it would not be a simple task to convince the average, law-abiding citizen that genocide in Sudan continues because the rest of the world is not ruthless, intimidating and aggressive enough. Nevertheless, this is the case. As long as we refuse to accept such a radical idea, the killings of Sudanese civilians will continue. The only three countries in the world that are equipped to stop the violence are the United States, Britain and France, but their gaze is currently on the Middle East. Sound familiar? Over a half-century ago, the most capable nations in the West did nothing to disrupt the railroads that led to the gas chambers of the Nazi concentration camps. If the U.S. government, in the name of peace, refuses to take an aggressive stand in Darfur it will again be letting people die because of red tape.

The violence in Sudan is deep-rooted and resource based. It began with conflict in southern Sudan, where the oil-rich region of Abyei was claimed by the rebel provisional government of South Sudan. The locals were in constant conflict with the Misseriya, a group of Arab nomads, resulting in the senseless murder of countless Abyei civilians. This civil war between the southerners and the Sudanese government, which raged between 1983 and 2005, resulted in two million deaths. The shaky peace deal brokered by the Bush administration allowed Preisdent Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s dictator since 1989, to retain power. However, not only has al-Bashir failed to control the lawless Abyei region, he continues to aid janjaweed militias in their continuous campaign of genocide in Darfur. Clearly, the status quo is untenable.

The U.S. possesses enough ammunition to free the peoples of southern Sudan and Darfur within three days, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Darfur is 600 miles away from Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. The Sudanese air force’s 51 combat aircraft, 44 helicopters, 25 transports and the few munitions facilities and runways can be destroyed with carrier-based air strikes. This will cut all air links, trapping the Sudanese military in distant Darfur with no access to food and ammunition. Cornering the janjaweed is an even simpler task—we can sever the few supply routes they have by land.

Indeed, war may not even be necessary. A few threats may be all it takes to convince the Sudanese regime to put an end to its campaign of mass murder. The more countries join in on the mission to save them, the more likely that the threats will be successful. China and Russia must suspend arms sales and the U.S. must not relent in its aggressive stance. Working with Sudan’s Arab neighbors, the U.S. must make it plain that the janjaweed and the Sudanese militias have only two options to choose from: cooperation with the United Nations or complete annihilation. What matters most is that we use our power, whether through warning or force, to permit the people of Darfur and southern Sudan to live their lives without fear.

At this point, the U.N. has not done its part. After promising to send 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur before the beginning of this year, only 9,000 have arrived after months of waiting. The U.N.’s current duty lies in monitoring Abyei and preventing local wars between farmers and nomads for oil. The U.N. had been unable to send the required number of peacekeepers because Khartoum had refused permission. That is why, if Khartoum is successfully threatened, the Sudanese government will not be in a position to grant or refuse permission at all. Presenting Sudan with a fait accompli is needed to halt genocide.

Right now, the brunt of the burden falls on the African Union and the European Union, both of which are faced with an overwhelming task. The former was able to muster 7,000 troops for Darfur; the latter was able to deploy a weak line of soldiers in the middle of an empty desert. Other than these examples, only the charities assist the Darfuris. Saving lives, however, is a greater priority than sending blankets. The U.S. must take on a hostile and forceful stance or else more lives will end in Darfur.