Conflicts like those in Darfur and Somalia always spark heated debate. The most common arguments are ideological in nature, centering around questions of moral responsibility and the need for legitimacy. But other technical questions are equally harrowing and often overlooked. Take Darfur as an example. If the United States were to expand its involvement in Sudan, should it act solely through the United Nations? Should the UN mission absorb the African Union envoy, or should they merely attempt to work more collaboratively? Should the outside groups become actively involved with the local peace process, or should they restrict their role to maintaining order? If the UN is kept out of the negotiations, how does it ensure a lasting resolution? These questions often have no good answers, as our recent history in Kosovo, Rwanda, and Iraq has shown us, and all decisions have serious costs. Even the best laid plans almost always fail.

Ultimately, I’m not arguing that we simply ignore the suffering in these states, and I only make these points as a means of comparison. As contrasted with Darfur and Somalia, the recent electoral controversy in Zimbabwe is remarkably straightforward. Zimbabwe’s economic woes can be directly attributed to the policies of Robert Mugabe, and most experts agree that the president deserves the lion’s share of the blame for the suffering of his people. Getting Mugabe out of office would thus markedly improve the situation in Zimbabwe.

Moreover, the US didn’t even have to embezzle funds and support a coup in order to oust Mugabe from power (as it did in Venezuela a few years ago), and it didn’t have to invade the country like it did in Iraq. The Zimbabwean people voted—yes, voted—Mugabe out of power, and the only thing the United States had to do was exert pressure on him to abide by the results of the March 29 election. And yet, the US failed to do so immediately following the vote, allowing Mugabe to reestablish his hold on the presidency and bunker down for a fight. As of this writing, the president’s administration has still not yielded to calls by the opposition to release the official election results, though numerous reports suggest that the vote came down in favor of the opposition party leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

Needless to say the US can neither force Mugabe to release the results nor abide by them without the threat of military action, but harsh censure can still undermine and discredit the autocrat’s hold on power. So far, many international leaders have been loath to unleash criticism on Mugabe because he remains a symbol of pan-African nationalism’s ideological victory over colonialism. Neighboring leaders like Thabo Mbeki of South Africa are particularly vulnerable to this political two-step, as criticizing one of the first pan-African leaders may very well hurt his own political future, regardless of Mugabe’s past transgressions. While toeing the line between being under-involved and imperiously over-involved, the US must underscore the suffering Mugabe’s policies have caused and insist he abide by the results of the popular vote. After all, Mugabe has already conceded the Parliament to the opposition, so he might be more susceptible to the pressure of international condemnation than we may think.

Of course, the lackluster US response is entirely predictable. Zimbabwe doesn’t exactly qualify as a strategic interest of the United States (read: no oil), so no one really cares. But, think about it from another perspective—this lack of political importance might just be the biggest reason next to the plight of the Zimbabweans for the US to take an interest in the outcome of the struggle. The US government could use the situation in Zimbabwe to show that it cares about democracy in more than just petro-states, and it might even salvage one iota of the US’s international reputation from the wreckage of Iraq—all at no diplomatic cost. Now that’s a political bargain everyone can get behind.

President Bush and his administration have started to catch on. Meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday, Bush said that the controversy in Zimbabwe had persisted for too long and encouraged the Security Council to discuss possible repercussions. But if Bush lets the situation fester and deteriorate into mass violence, our small window of opportunity to act will be gone faster than we can say “Kenya.”

Update (4/24): Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa calls for an arms embargo on the faltering state; the United States formally criticizes Mugabe and argues against a power-sharing agreement.