John Kerry has issued a press release condemning the genocide in Sudan. And yes, he uses that word explicitly:

First, President Bush should stop equivocating and join the U.S. Congress in calling the catastrophe in Darfur by its rightful name: genocide. He should also release immediately the powerful findings of the State Department’s own investigation into the horrors in Darfur.

Good for him. We should give credit where credit is due: he's at least recognized the disaster and is using his campaign platform to draw wider attention to it, and that's a good thing.

But. (Yes, you knew there would be a 'but')

Second, he should lead the UN Security Council to impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum Government – now. These sanctions should freeze the assets of the Sudanese Government, its leaders and business affiliates, outlaw arms sales or transfers to Sudan, and prohibit the purchase of Sudanese oil.

Wouldn't this have been a good spot to point out that the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Sudan in 1997 (PDF) that were never lifted? (Handy web sites: the U.S. Treasury page on sanctions, and SanctionsWatch.com.) If Kerry has complaints about the particular details of the U.S. sanctions in place, fine, but the casual reader will take away the incorrect impression that there currently are no U.S. sanctions at all against Sudan.

Moving on...

Third, the president should raise the funds to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance to those in dire need. The UN says it needs $531 million. If others won’t commit these funds, the U.S. should.

I have no problem with humanitarian assistance, but a) Not through the U.N. kleptocracy (we've been there and done that), and b) I don't see why such aid should be forcefully and involuntarily taken from U.S. taxpayers from our Treasury. The U.S. government is authorized to use our money to defend us abroad; I do not see it as authorized to use that money to try to solve all the world's problems. Establish a charity, and encourage American citizens to support it --- but don't just write a check that American taxpayers will have to cover.

“Fourth, and very importantly, the U.S. should ensure the immediate deployment of an effective international force to disarm militia, protect civilians and facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur. The African Union has offered 3,000 troops. More will be needed. The UK has hinted that it too could offer some forces. We should contribute sufficient funds and the logistical support the African Union needs to accomplish this mission. The Sudanese Government has thus far rejected such a force. The UN should authorize this force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and the U.S. should make plain we will not accept Khartoum continuing to block its deployment.

And here's where President Kerry would have a real problem. President Bush has established a track record which is quite clear: he is willing to use American military force. But Kerry's record in the Senate, his campaign rhetoric, and the recent history of his party suggest exactly the opposite. Where Bush can actually use the threat of American force to avoid the necessity of using American force, Kerry would have no such credibility. This damages our efforts to rally allies --- as Kerry suggests we do above --- because they will question our commitment to the cause we are asking them to sign up to. And it damages our ability to pressure our enemies, as they will --- perhaps rightly --- believe that President Kerry's bluff can be safely called.

So when Kerry says "the U.S. should make plain we will not accept Khartoum continuing to block [an international force's] deployment", the question that leaps to mind is "or else, what?" With Bush, you know what the "or else" is. My fear is that with Kerry, we know it is is --- or isn't --- as well.

Whether the U.S. should consider committing troops to Sudan is an open question, and one I haven't resolved in my own mind. But if Kerry is going to put American credibility on the line with statements that we "will not accept" Sudan's actions, it is legitimate to ask how he intends to back up that threat.

The remainder of Kerry's statement calls for efforts to aid a peace settlement, and for Bush to support the establishment of a war crimes tribunal . I've no problem with any of that.

To be clear: I commend Senator Kerry for speaking out on Sudan, and for continuing to draw attention to this crisis. But Sudan provides a useful test case to picture a President Kerry, and imagine how he might handle future crises -- and how he might be constrained by his own image as a man deeply reluctant to resort to military force, backed by a political party who has made such resistance its badge of honor.