The U.S. should not invade Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur

Thankyou for accepting the challenge 1. I understand the Iraq war and a hypothetical invasion of Sudan are very different conflicts. However they have one outstanding similarity: the U.S. is invading a foreign country. This means in a sustained war there is a possibility for further war profiteering as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is the greatest blow to the efficiency of the wars and the taxpayer's money. Recently the U.S. has proved to be inefficient in handling it's foreign invasions, and should not be granted an opportunity to mount another one of similar characteristics. Also a very important common factor is the primary enemy in both wars is the fact that the primary enemy are radical guerilla insurgents, with few large targets for us to bomb. The U.S. would run into the same problems they have in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan: high civilian casualties and difficulty making progress in subduing the enemy because they practice guerilla warfare (a difficult form of warfare for a unified military to face) and do not travel in large groups. 2. To fully stop the genocide the U.S. would most likely depose the Sudanese government, which is funding the Janjaweed police group, which is committing the genocide. This action would be reflecting recent U.S. war strategy, in Afghanistan the U.S. deposed of the current Taliban government, which wasn't actually committing terrorist acts but funding and harboring Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Therefore the U.S. would likely be required to depose the Sudanese government, and there is no way more stability can result from deposing the current government of a nation. Could you also clarify your position on the U.S. deposing the Sudanese government? I realize there are many varying strategies about how the invasion should be handled. Bottom line on this point, is that I do not trust the U.S. government to handle the situation in a beneficial and proper way. 3. "The US set a precedent to intervene in large violations of human rights when we helped institute the declaration of human rights in the UN charter." I personally disagree with the U.S. being so heavily involved in the UN, I'm not saying the U.S. should withdraw, I'm just saying we should consider our own interests to be paramount to what the UN wants us to do. "Also, the US has troops in 83 countries at the moment." I also disagree with many of the extended occupations of foreign nations that the U.S. currently employs, I believe we should withdraw troops from most of these nations. 4. The nation and its' people simply do not need another foreign war to suck up the vast majority of their money. Especially, as I said before, when there is a possibility of extensive war profiteering. "At least we will be then spending our money on important things instead of earmarking, large subsidies in unneeded industries, or meaningless bureaucracies." I wholeheartedly agree that money should not be spent on these things, however I do not believe an invasion of Sudan is worthy action that the majority of the American people would support because of the high price and soldier casualties. I believe more money needs to be retained by the people who earned it. 5. Referring back to point 2, if the U.S. deposes the Sudanese government, it would do the same thing it did in Afghanistan and Iraq: set up a western U.S. backed republic. This is a cultural invasion that the U.S. should not undertake, as it would generate more anti-American sentiment in Africa, just as the democratic U.S. backed states of Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan have generated even more intense hatred of the U.S. and West. There is an increasing wave of anti-American sentiment sweeping through Africa, the last thing we need is more intervention in that area. If African nations were to get angrier at the U.S., there could be an increased tide of African nations funding terrorists. You forget that one of the primary reasons that Africa and the Middle East are in such bad conditions and have such hatred of the West, is because of U.S. and other western intervention and regulation of their affairs. Essentially the foundation of my opponent's argument is that because it is a good moral thing to do, the U.S. should do it. While it sounds great in theory, it is simply an unrealistic and naive approach to foreign policy. There are terrible things happening all the time around the world. The purpose of the U.S. military is not to intervene and stop these things, it is to defend this country, and attack those who pose an imminent to the U.S., it has no place being a world police force. Sudan and the Janjaweed pose absolutely no direct threat to the U.S. Conflicts like this should be handled by those live in Africa who know the area and culture. The Janjaweed and Sudan do not have many friends in Africa, Chad has recently been fighting the Janjaweed, because the conflict directly affects them. The African Union has also made attempts to resolve the conflict. These are the people who should be actively involved with this event, not a large superpower thousands of miles away from it.