In Darfur the marauders got away with murder. Will it continue apace?

That's the question, after the U.N. Security Council finally pledged to send a massive peacekeeping force into the western region of Sudan. Civilians there need protection now, but full deployment could take months.

It's a bitter pill considering the enormity of the violence that began four years ago. The humanitarian crisis now counts more than 200,000 people slaughtered, more than 2 million uprooted and 4 million dependent on food handouts. The situation demanded an urgent response years ago.

The fighting began when ethnic African tribes rebelled against an Arab-dominated government they accused of discrimination. The clashes intensified as militias known as janjaweed, backed by the government, went on marauding missions against civilians. (The government has denied stoking the retaliation.)

Alarm bells have rung continuously. The U.N. resolution is at least a forward, united motion and, of course, a cause for hope, however measured.

The Security Council unanimously approved the plan to send forces to Darfur with the goal of protecting civilians. The force will include up to 26,000 troops, including the 7,000 weary forces already deployed by the African Union but unsuccessful at stopping the massacres.

But this "hybrid" force will not have the range of tools it could have had. Proposed language in the resolution that threatened sanctions against Khartoum if it blocks peacekeeping efforts is gone. (Wouldn't want to offend China, which imports two-thirds of Sudan's oil.) And a provision to allow peacekeepers to seize weapons from the fighters disappeared in the political wrangling as well. Will this be another Rwanda, with U.N. forces on the ground but effectively rendered toothless by their orders?

The world waits. Darfur suffers. Nations should hurry to send their troops to fulfill their pledge of protection and their desire for a cease-fire.

— Sacramento Bee