What's the difference between 50 years of war and genocide?

Afghanistan and Iraq prove there are no short wars when it comes to intervention and imposing our will on other cultures. We have killed more Afghans than the former Taliban government could ever dream of, even if they were as barbaric as they were portrayed to be. We have intentionally manipulated ethnic tensions, colluded with warlords, created insurgent elements to achieve our own military, economic and cultural objectives. Prolonged war in Afghanistan is justified by phrases like, “the jobs not done”, “it takes time to build a nation”, “it’ll revert back to the way it was”, “an even bigger bloodbath will occur if we leave now”. These are all designed to ignore the real questions that needed to be asked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/opinion/main5387410.shtml
Tom Hayden: An Influential Pentagon Strategist Advocates a Multi-Decade Counterinsurgency Campaign.

“Let us say, hypothetically, that American forces kill or capture Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, enabling President Obama to declare victory and bring our troops home. Would he? Not according to the Pentagon's plan for a fifty-year "Long War" of counterinsurgency spanning Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and beyond. “

We have the mechanisms we need to try and prevent wars such as the ones in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Darfur. These mechanisms require self examination. They require not only the concept behind doctrines like Responsibility to Protect (R2P) but more importantly, responsibility not to be complicit. So long as we refuse to acknowledge this truth there is no solution only duplicity. Why are we outraged by China in Northern Africa but not the U.S., Canada, and Britain over Iraq and Afghanistan? Canada was and remains complicit in Haiti. Why is it that the systematic killing, torture and abuse of political groups by allies, governments in good standing, remain exempt from our outrage? Why is it less horrendous than ethnic killing?

A lot of questions need to be asked and resolve to oppose unacceptable answers like; "Well we can't be everywhere." This has never been the point and never will be.

Responsibility not to be complicit. - Canada as a nation needs to withdraw from global economic and political exploitive strategies. Neutrality does not mean inaction or prevent Canada from joining an intervention on its own terms based on its own independent assessment of the crisis.

Responsibility to Protect. - The UN Security Council needs to be reformed first to remove veto power. A country can refuse to participate but cannot block an action. UN Security Council must be equipped to confront its own members and investigate when evidence of complicity or duplicity is presented.

Responsibility to Prevent (Article 3 of R2P doctrine) – International development aid is the major peace building mechanism but both liberal and conservative governments continue to abuse CIDA.

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/EMA-218132744-PPX

• Stop basing development aid on welfare models and so called 'bang for the buck' assessment programs. Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau and other countries threaten to slide back into violence but are not considered good development prospects.

• Make serious commitments to existing development aid structures and respect for sovereignty.

• Elimination of all political parties and self titled ‘democratic’ movements from development aid. The overthrow of Aristide in Haiti was in part financed under the disguise of democratic development and funding of opposition groups who were most likely a part of the coup d’état.

Redefine genocide as it pertains to outside military intervention and the manipulation of ethnic, national, and religious animosities in order to gain control over land, resources or to impose unwanted cultural values. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Genocide as an immoral public relations exercise; The ‘selling’ of one genocide or intervention scenario over another to gain sympathy for intervention. This is where strong, neutral, independent diplomatic assessment is necessary.