Should U.S. Send Peace Troops?

The issue in Darfur is between Arab Janjaweed and the Muslims. Rebel groups in Darfur formed to attack the Sudanese government for discriminating against non-Arab tribes. The Sudanese government formed a militia known as Janjaweed to chase rebel groups out using rape and murder to clear entire villages. Chad and the African Union have made efforts to stop the battle while the Sudanese government rejects UN force and requested the AU to leave.

Lawerence Kaplan argues that Darfur is in need of foreign intervention. Many activists want to fund the AU and lobby for the UN however; Lawrence thinks the AU won't put a stop to the killings, the UN will not solve the crisis and "the victims of Darfur can be saved by one thing and one thing alone: American power" (149). Through his argument he seems to be playing the sympathy card. The killing taking place in Darfur is horrible and if the U.S. can help it should but as David Rieff said in the no argument, "The United States is the last country that should be leading an international operation in Darfur" (151). The U.S. is in a bad position; viewed as a bully and imperial aggressor. International military should be deployed to keep the civilians safe from the attacking Sudanese government and to ward off the term genocide. David made a point concerning political interests of non-arab tribes, rebels, and the Janjaweed. He says, "To describe the former simply as victims deprives them of any agency. To describe the latter simply as killers precludes actually understanding the conflict a anything other than an eruption of human wickedness, rather like a volcano or an earthquake" meaning that a side can't be taken without understanding the conflict (153).

Although it seems morally correct for the U.S. to send peace keeping troops, I believe the no argument is stronger. With problems in Iraq and being in a bad position, the U.S. shouldn't be leading a peace intervention. The United Nations should stand up for one of their goals in securing peace.