Are there no instances of the U.S participation in U.N peacekeeping, that has led to a betterment of the situation? I find the above difficult to believe. Do I need to Google?
===========================
This thread's subject heading changes as often as Bush admin excuses for assaulting Iraq.
But onward...
Regarding UN peacekeeping missions, try this -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_UN_peacekeeping_missions>
An intriguing list of actions. I don't think US troops were deployed under the UN flag in many of these operations (if any). Also, it would be an enlightening exercise to track how much "good" was done in each situation. There appears to be a iceberg of gray there.
Regarding pressuring Washington to participate in a UN mission for Darfur...
That sounds fine in principal but if Washington becomes militarily involved it will insist on doing things its way without "interference" from lesser powers (the US' de facto stance towards the UN since the beginning). This means a peacekeeping mission heavily dependent upon the use of air power and other spectacular displays of technoforce - because titanium plated death deliverance is what we yanks do best.
No doubt, many bad men would be liquidated while commanders approvingly watched on flat screens in the Pentagon. And no doubt, the phrase 'collateral damage' would get a good workout as spokespersons described those non-combatants relieved of the burden of living through laser guided ordinance.
And yet, despite this, 'good' will have been done. No doubt.
Now here's the thing...if my only option for rescue is a bunch of gangsters well, I'm going to pick up the goddamn phone and call the mofos. But, once the immediate problem is dealt with - or at least, held at bay - I'm contending with a bunch of gangsters who have gangster style plans for my life. And oh by the way, I owe them.
Parables about leopards with their non-changeable spots and a scorpion killing the frog (or some such animal) helping it cross a river come to mind: you know, because it's in the nature of some things to just do what they do.
What Washington does is what great powers have always done - play games for the benefit of a few well placed folk. Nothing new under the sun.
But what you're, more or less, saying is: 'well yes, that's true but maybe we can pressure these gangsters into becoming aid workers - if the pressure's great enough and applied at vital acupressure points, the geopolitical qigiong can be re-directed; yes, we can ride this bull, turn it away from plunging its horns into that quivering flesh (though it longs to do so) and towards the softer, helping arts.'
To which I say, go to it. Hope is nice. If you hope to alter Washington's course via pressure then good luck and tell me how I can support the effort – because, well, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”.
More Ravi:
I do realize the perils of U.S intervention, especially military. Perhaps U.S funding of an international force may be a better idea. Or something else. What I think is not an option is that we let these problems take a back seat, as Doug seems to be suggesting.
========================
The sort of funding you suggest IS a better idea and has been for over sixty years. But there's the problem of “linkage” - if US funds are being used, the US gets a say and the American style is to turn “a say” into THE say. This brings us back to the smart bombs, the thermobarics and clusters and all the other 'solve the problem quickly from the air' options our modern Curtis LeMays' love so well.
Once more with Ravi:
You radical leftists in the West like to think of the U.S as the root of all evil, or of liberals as "do-gooders", and so on. Do you also realize that the rest of the world is a fucked up place with its share of brutal thugs? If polls in Iraq can be believed at all, until recently, a majority of *Iraqis* wanted continued U.S presence (IIRC), exactly to handle the situation we (the U.S) had created.
==============================
Of course.
When you're desperate and fed up you'd have lunch with the devil himself if you thought it'd help your plight. And note that, per the polled desires of Iraqis – at least, “until recently” - the helpful Americans did indeed stay – and in force with all their toys. But, as you know, this hasn't helped things at all.
Quite the opposite, it seems.
There's a lesson to be learned there if we would but absorb it.
And no, the US isn't the "root of all evil". It's just very well placed to do very bad things at the moment. If we survive, others will surely have their turn. But for now, I think Team America is disqualified.
.d.
--------- "For ten years Caesar ruled with an iron fist. Then with a wooden leg; and finally with a piece of string."