Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

Hello, had computer problems, will try to get in whatever response I can. Rebuttals:Not all foreign intervention works. I would like to dispute this point on face in two ways:1) Some foreign intervention not working is not grounds for never intervening at all. Interestingly, during this time, foreign intervention is working, or has recently worked, in Panama and Yugoslavia. 2) None of these conflicts are analogous to the Rwandan one. This is a genocide, with two fairly disorganized sides fighting, and US intervention, unlike any of the others, would be strictly neutral. This gives more reason for success, because a peace process would come organically between the two sides, as opposed to a continued cycle of military coups and killings. To respond to individual examples: 1) Korea: Interesting that my opponent chooses this as an example where intervention fails, since the US did stop China and North Korea from completely annexing and occupying the South. The border might be militarized, but peace has held, more or less, since the 1950s, saving millions. 2) Vietnam: Of course Vietnam did not work, but it was a poorly planned mission, founded on a false premise, with massive soldiers on the US side. The US also intervened on behalf of the South Vietnamese, as opposed to operating neutrally. All of these served to cause disaster to the US. However, none of these factors are present in the Rwandan conflict. 3) UTF: Again, this was strictly a civil conflict, and the US operated against one faction specifically, while not taking part in the peace process at all. These factors led to the situation in Somalia. 4) Iraq is outside of time-space, since, as of April 20, 1994, it has not happened. Interestingly, what has happened is Operation Desert Storm, which was a RESOUNDING success. Finally, the Hutu did not use guerrilla tactics; rather, they simply created mobs to kill Tutsis. They operated on an ad hoc basis, without any real central authority, which makes them much more vulnerable to a neutral intervention. Soldiers wouldn't want to fightUS troops got demoralized in Vietnam because of the massive casualties caused by a well-organized, Chinese and Soviet-funded and armed opposition. We have none of that in Rwanda. No power is funding either side, unless you consider Uganda and Zaire world powers. Both sides operate on an ad hoc basis without much, if any, central organizing authority. The US is also not really fighting, as they are simply fostering peace, rather than fighting one side specifically. Yes, PTSD happens, and it is a tragedy; however, hundreds of thousands are getting killed, with an innumerable amount of others getting injured, perhaps with PTSD. There is also a massive refugee crisis. PTSD among soldiers is clearly outweighed here. Finally, while soldiers would likely suffer emotional trauma, this needs to be outweighed by saving thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions, of lives by intervening. Sadness does not outweigh death. If ever there was a situation ripe for a neutral intervention, with ill-organized sides operating on an ad hoc basis, trying to hide killings from foreigners, this situation seems clear as one that would be effective. Neither side in this conflict has close to the firepower and organization necessary to be a threat to the US, and, as such, would likely rather succumb to a peace process with minimal US casualties, with the effect of saving millions. Thank you, and I look forward to reading your rebuttals.