should the US send troops to Darfur ?

US considering UN component in Darfur peace force: official Mon Dec 5, 6:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States raised the prospect of the United Nations sending troops to bolster an African Union peace force in Darfur, amid urgent calls to shield civilians from further violence.

US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer said the AU, with 7,000 troops already deployed, would struggle to raise the force to 12,000 men in the strife-torn region of western Sudan.

"For the AU to get from 7,000 to 12,000 is going to be very difficult," Frazer said, during a briefing for foreign reporters, which followed some calls for NATO to mount a rare mercy mission outside Europe.

"We have to look at other options, to get troops up to about 12,000 -- that may include looking at UN troop contributors. The AU hasn't made that request yet, we certainly are considering it as one of the options."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051205/wl_afp/usafricasudandarfur

_______________________________________________________________

personally I think that the US should provide logistics but let other countries deal with the peacekeeping

For another perspective on Darfur and what is happening, I suggest you go to http://www.refugeesinternational.org Refugees International has been monitoring the situation for a long time-in fact, I think they were the ones who alerted the world to how dire the situation was. They have recommendations, etc, at their website. And since it is an international NGO, with no ties to any government, I think their suggestions are always in the best interests of refugees.

We are the worlds greatest superpower and with that comes great responsibility. It is our duty to help these people that cannot help themselves in my opinion. I guess peacekeeping just doesn't bring in the big Halliburton contract dollars like invading a country that hasn't done anything to us.

save lives then instead of being in a quagmire where they have to take them. Anything to get them out of Iraq except starting another war.

We are obligated to step in wherever and whenever genoicide is occuring.

It's right in their neighborhood and won't need a lot of logistics assistance.

the problem with NATO is that it wasn't planned as a projection force but as a defensive force relying on US transport capacities.

If you count the KFOR in Kosovo, EUFOR in Bosnia, the Afghan mission, diverse missions in Congo, Ivory Coast, Haiti, participation in Enduring Freedom etc... I bet there are about 200 000 Europeans overseas or "abroad".

Some could be relieved from Iraq, but they are probably pretty pooped out...

Personally I think that it would be a bad idea to put US troops on the ground in Darfur, not because of what they could achieve, but because they automatically would become targets in a semi-muslim area, due to the US actual image.