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

I'd like to start by letting Con and the voters know that my following arguments are nearly identical to the case my partner and I run in Public Forum, so it may seem slightly more like a traditional PF round rather than a traditional DDO round. The best defense is a good offense. Since I agree with this popular expression, and so we affirm the resolved: United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. I will prove our position through the following two contentions. 1. Offensive operations are more effective 2. Offensive operations increase UN"s credibility Before returning to my first contention it is important to make note that as Pro, I do not have to prove that offensive engagement is the right strategy in every circumstance, but rather some circumstances. Let"s return to my first contention, that offensive operations are more effective. For some time now, the Democratic Republic of the Congo"s eastern Kivu province has been plagued by the militia "M23". This group is extremely dangerous, and as put by the Human Rights Watch "M23 rebels in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo are responsible for widespread war crimes, including summary executions, rapes, and forced recruitment. " [1] This group is obviously a threat to the civilians in the region, and some action must be taken against them. The UN peacekeeping forces have tried and failed to defeat them while following normal protocol. An example of this is their loss of the city of Goma, which M23 rebels took over with little resistance from the peacekeepers. According to BBC "The 19,000-strong UN force in DR Congo, known by the acronym MONUSCO, did not intervene. " [2] These troops could not intervene due to the reason that they were not authorized to use offensive force. However, following this debacle, the UN took drastic action and created the Force Intervention Brigade on March 28th, 2013. This brigade is far different from other peacekeeping operations because they were authorized to use offensive force, and this authorization has proven effective. On November 2nd, 2013 the Washington Post reported the success of the FIB, stating that "This week, the Congolese and U. N. forces [the FIB] pushed the rebels of the M23 movement out of major towns, including their last primary stronghold of Bunagana, near the Ugandan border. " [3] The FIB, only 3,069 strong managed to accomplish what 19,000 strong unit of MONUSCO troops could not. They managed to not only defeat the rebels, but expel them from all of their strongholds in the DRC. In fact, there is such wide consensus of success that the Congo has asked for even more help from the UN in order to eradicate another large threat, a rebel group known as the FDLR. Offensive operations should be used because they have demonstrated extreme effectiveness when compared to traditional peacekeeping methods. Now moving to our second contention, offensive operations increase the UN"s credibility. As I have previously mentioned, the organization M23 that the Force Intervention Brigade defeated were a horrible group, committing many war crimes. The defeat of this group by the FIB boosts the UN"s credibility, specifically as a peacekeeping institution. This credibility increase is very important, because it makes the UN appear as an institution whose purpose is to create and enforce peace. With this increased credibility, the UN will be able to do more in order to help more people, because more nations will begin to see the UN as an increasingly effective and credible institution. However, this credibility increase can only occur if the UN is able to engage enemies in offensive operations, such as the Force Intervention Brigade was able to do in Kivu against the M23 rebels. If we were to not allow the UN to conduct offensive operations, they will return to the traditional image of UN peacekeepers who stood by and watched as people were slaughtered in front of them. As PBS frontline stated during an episode titled 100 Days of Slaughter, the Triumph of Evil "Some U. N. camps shelter civilians, but most of the U. N. peacekeeping forces, [such as the] United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda stand by while the slaughter goes on. " [4] Such ideas of inactivity do nothing to boost the UN"s credibility as a peacekeeping organization. So ultimately, going in offensively boosts the credibility of the United Nations so that they are continuously able to successfully negotiate peace in instances where they are needed. In conclusion, UN peacekeepers need to be able to engage the enemy offensively because it is more effective than the alternative of defensive engagement, and the tool of offensive engagement will allow the UN to boost credibility as an organization. Thank you. [1] . http://www.hrw.org... [2] . http://www.bbc.com... [3] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] . http://www.aljazeera.com... [5] . http://www.pbs.org...