Originally Posted by Heilige
That's woefully inaccurate.
The US Army alone counting Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve, numbers just over 1 million soldiers. "Most of our troops," are right here in the United States.
Skimming over this in wikipedia now. We easily have the resources to send a force in there, but for what purpose? Would they be going in with a mandate allowing them to adapt to changing situations, or would they have their hands tied as seen in 1992-1993 Operation Restore Hope? Further is the question about the "correctness," of a military intervention force, although nobody batted an eye when the French decimated the Ivory Coast, I doubt anyone would view another overt deployment of US forces in the context that it is used and crys of Imperialism would become rampant.
Sorry, but people want to complain about US intervention, so I say leave it to the UN. After all, that's what they're there for.
True, there's over a million soldiers in the Army alone, but that does not mean the Army has 1 million combat-ready soldiers. The majority of troops in any branch are in non-combat specialties, about 70%. True, once bullets start flying, everyone's infantry, but logistically speaking it would have to be an extreme case to have ALL our troops overseas.
You might say, "So you think Darfur's not an extreme case?" Of course it is, but so Somalia when Mohammad Farah Aidid was ruling things with an iron fist. UN sent guys over there, they got ripped up. US sent guys over there, we got ripped up and had a soldier's dead body dragged through the streets. What the US goverment meant to be a clean quiet execution turned into a mess, because we underestimated those guys over there.
That's why neither UN nor US helped out in Rwanda, that's we we pulled out of Haiti's situation, and that's why we won't help out in Darfur. Which funny, because we did send Marines to Liberia to help with the Monrovia situation. We're too busy picking the wrong battles to fight. When I was in the Army, I would much sooner go help out the rest of our guys with the Katrina victims than go to Iraq. As a soldier I would rather put my efforts towards an actual humanitarian mission, because that was my job in the military. In some respects, that's what Iraq could've been, and in the beginning after Saddam was overthrown there were Iraqis who were glad about it. Now it's a different story. I fear that even if we did go to Darfur under the Bush administration, it would turn out worse.