United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations

Thanks for the challenge, Fourtrouble. Hopefully my 15 minutes of research paid off and I can make a cogent case. In 1873 one of the most iconic weapons of all time, the Colt .45 revolver, made its way to the market. Despite being an incredibly deadly weapon by the standards of the time the weapon quickly acquired an unusual nickname: The Peacemaker. Through this example we understand the concept of peace through strength. As Samuel Colt himself said, "The good people in this world are very far from being satisfied with each other and my arms are the best peacemaker." The adage "If you want peace, prepare for war" passed down from our Roman forebears for over 1500 years is still spoken today for a reason--the only way to prevent war and to enact lasting peace is through overwhelming physical force. Because of "muh feels", some would argue that the peacekeepers ought to be prohibited from implementing this kind of force and crushing those who would do evil under its stylish and multinational boot. This is an absurd position and throughout the debate I will prove it. I want the Peacekeepers to be Peacemakers. As we will see, the only way to do that is through empowering them to offensively engage the enemy. =Who are the Peacekeepers?=Let's quickly take an overview of the status quo. The Peacekeepers are a toothless group of UN mercenaries who are prohibited from actually doing anything to keep peace unless they are directly asked to intervene and cannot use force unless they are attacked. Like the odious legal doctrine of "duty to retreat", this hands all of the control over to the wicked. Disempowering the "good guys" in a situation is never a good thing.The UN website describes the three basic principles of the peacekeepers as such[1]: 1. Consent of the warring parties, 2. Impartiality, and 3. No use of force except in defensive situations. One doesn't need to be a hard nosed realist to read those tenants and understand why despite ostensibly having a world organization with authorization to raise a military force we are still plagued by war. It's obvious. The Peacekeepers are like cops who can't intervene unless both parties call for them and cannot use force until they are attacked. That threshold for violence wouldn't even keep the peace between middle schoolers, let alone genocidal militia forces. Without the empowerment to use physical force the peacekeepers are far from peacemakers. I. Physical force is necessary My sole contention is that physical force is often necessary to establish peace. Sun Tzu is rolling around in his grave right now--not in anger, but in laughter. An army that cannot engage the enemy until it has been directly attacked is nothing except an army of sitting ducks, except an army of ducks would probably do more to protect a people facing genocide than an army of peacekeepers who aren't peacemakers. At least ducks might get in the way.Let's look at some examples of why we need offensive operations. The most obvious example is the Rwandan genocide. A genocidal war to the death broke out between the Hutu supremacist government and Tutsi people. Soon enough civilians were being murdered with machetes and by wars end an estimated 70% of the Tutsi population, nearly a million people[2], lay dead. Instead of immediately stepping in and ending the conflict with awe inspiring military power, the UN chose to send only a handful of peacekeepers to "help the parties implement the agreement, monitor its implementation and support the transitional Government"[3]. The UN sent its men to broker a peace that wasn't to come, and as soon as the violence got too thick the UN cowardly voted to withdraw--which predictably led to even more killings[4]: "The moment that the U.N. votes to withdraw, that's when we see a real spike in the violence...Because at that point it's clear to the Rwandans ... that there will not be any cavalry over the horizon."Romeo Dallaire, commander of the peacekeepers showed grit and spine that seemed to be totally lacking at the UN and heroically disobeyed orders and remained in Rwanda, the guns of his men saving hundreds of lives. It wasn't nearly enough. Dallaire begged for more soldiers and less red tape so that he could use these soldiers, but the UN was more interested in patting itself on the back for being peaceful and nonaggressive than it was in saving lives.As Human Rights Watch explains about the conflict[5]: "Some Belgian soldiers believed that there were virtually no circumstances in which they could legitimately fire their weapons—some attribute the capture of the ten peacekeepers who were later executed to that belief—and many Rwandan soldiers and militia believed that the UNAMIR soldiers would not fire, regardless of the provocation. The policy on the use of firearms symbolized the more general and long-established reluctance of UNAMIR to take any deterrent action. As Dallaire had predicted in February, some Rwandans perceived this reluctance as weakness and were emboldened by it." Human Rights Watch has one thing wrong: it implies that the reluctance to fire was not weakness. It was. An army that refuses to fire upon the enemy is not an army in any meaningful sense and totally fails to even protect themselves, let alone keep the peace. The UN, thankfully, learned something from this terrible mistake. When the UN decided to force peace on the Congo, they sent in men trained and authorized to kill and surprise surprise, attacks by the Lords Resistance Army fell by 75%[6]. Historical precedent supports the intuitive position that force brings peace. Paul Collier explained in War, Guns, and Votes[7] that when France guaranteed that any rebel groups in its African colonies would be put down with swift and brutal military force the risk of conflict declined by 75%. This should surprise no one who has even the foggiest idea of human nature: people follow their incentives. UN Peacemakers riding in to come and kill you if you don't surrender is a lot more threatening that UN peacekeepers coming to "monitor...the transition government" who won't fire their weapons no matter what the circumstances. There is a reason that bars hire burly, tough, massive men as bouncers rather than trained negotiators. There is a time and a place for talks of peace. There is a time and a place for restraint and defensive posture. Widespread civilian death by machete slaughter is not one of those times--when the enemy is at the gates it's our obligation to take a deep breath, aim, and treat them to a good dose of lead. Not wait until the fight is already lost to try and intervene. Fourtrouble is going to argue a number of things. He's going to argue that the UN is largely ineffectual and he's going to bring up examples that he thinks proves that offensive operations don't work. While I'll refute these, it's important to note immediately that none of these arguments are compelling arguments against the practice of UN sanctioned, multinational offensive operations. I am not obligated to prove that offensive operations always work or are always the best solution. Rather I just have to prove that it's best to keep that option in our toolbox. Fourtrouble has to prove that we should throw that tool away. I have more than met my burden. Empower the Peacemakers! Vote Pro. Sources: 1. http://www.un.org...2. http://survivors-fund.org.uk...3. http://www.un.org...4. http://edition.cnn.com...5. https://www.hrw.org...6. http://www.betterworldcampaign.org...7. http://oxfamblogs.org...