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

This debate is very simple. Fourtrouble does not dispute the necessity of offensive operations, rather he only argues that we should prefer enforcement operations using the militaries of a multinational coalition. The distinction between military usage of Peacekeepers and enforcement coalitions is that the latter relies on a more traditional military alliance with UN sanction. The UN Peacekeepers are a collection of forces donated to the UN by member states--the Peacekeepers effectively serve as the UN's military.Since FT doesn't dispute the necessity of force, this is an easy decision: all it takes to support a Pro ballot is the acknowledgement that we should keep the right to initiate force in our toolbox. All of FT's arguments obscure the simplicity of this decision: FT is comfortable with armed men standing by and literally watching as civilians are hacked to pieces with machetes because they aren't allowed to initiate force. It doesn't matter if non-Peacekeeper forces would generally be superior. We should always keep available the option for the Peacekeepers to take the fight to the enemy.=Why coalitions fail= Before going any deeper, we can already see why coalitions by themselves are insufficient: multinational coalitions take time to build. The queen may be a more powerful piece than the pawn, but if the pawn is in a position to attack the enemy only a fool would disallow it to and wait until the queen can be maneuvered into position instead. During the Rwandan genocide the UN had over 2500 Peacekeepers in position to strike the enemy--instead of attacking, they went with Fourtroubles plan and reduced their force by over 90%[1], instead hoping that maybe somebody else would do the job the red tape didn't allow them to. I want to empower every piece on the chessboard in our game against evil, FT doesn't.There is absolutely no excuse for a so called "Peacekeeping" force to pack up and leave while civilians are suffering widespread machete genocide. If the UN listened to someone who could still be classified as a vertebrate, like me, the Peacekeepers would've been given full authorization to use any force necessary to kill the enemy. Instead they ran away with their tails between their legs, leaving women and children to be hacked to death. FT later argues that the use of force could've been justified as self defense but this is false. Unless the Peacekeepers themselves are attacked, they have to sit by and twiddle their thumbs as civilians are murdered. The point? We cannot simply stand by and let evil run by unchecked. The UN Peacekeepers could've saved untold thousands of innocent lives had they stayed and had they had authorization to kill like the UN Peacekeepers in the Congo. How long would it have taken to build a coalition? Bush II took 6 months to build a coalition for the Iraq war[2], the Rwandan genocide was over in 4. The Peacekeepers were the pawn who was in a position to strike at the enemy, the queen would've gotten there far too late. And she never came.FT later talks about the importance of impartiality--this is exactly why the Peacekeepers are likely to be more effective at stopping evil than coalitions led by nations who place priority in securing their own interests. How are coalitions working today? The US and Russia are both leading competing coalitions in their proxy war over Syria[3]. Russia is aiding Assad, the US is funding the rebels, and ISIS grows to fill the vacuum. All the while thousands of civilians die and the war rages on. FT brings up the Gulf War as an example of a successful coalition--this happened while the Soviet Union was free falling into collapse and there was no one to undermine US interests and render the coalitions efforts fruitless like Russia and the US are doing to each other in Syria. Moreover both the US and Russia prop up evil, oppressive regimes as long as the brutal dictator in charge is willing to be their puppet. Multinational coalitions will not be cobbled together to destroy evil and stop genocide but rather to secure national interests, and these things are only sometimes correlated. Theoretically the UN could request that a nation such as the US engages in a unilateral intervention, but this defeats the purpose of the United Nations and a nation is only going to be willing to do something like this if it helped secure a national interest. A Peacekeeping force that is not attached to any national interest but rather the interests of mankind is often a superior alternative.=Fourtroubles disadvantages= FT lists four specific disadvantages to offensive operations. None of them are compelling. First he argues that a policy of common sense would make enforcement operations less likely. This simply doesn't follow from either the resolution nor from my advocacy: the resolution does not say we should empower Peacekeepers to initiate force and disempower anyone else from doing so. My advocacy is simply that if the Peacekeepers stumble upon terrorists who are murdering civilians they should be given authorization to kill them even if they were not themselves attacked. Considering that multinational coalitions are typically made to secure national interests I find it hard to believe that allowing the Peacekeepers to have some humanitarian value would decrease these. His second objection is even less compelling. I'm not sure what the implications of empowering the Peacekeepers to use force would be with regards to the laws of war, which are as complex as they are irrelevant in our world of post-conventional warfare. He says that they could be classified as combatants and therefore become legitimate military targets...here's the issue: they are already targets, as Rwanda shows. Indeed, because the genocidal maniacs knew that the Peacekeepers were reluctant to fight they were emboldened and attacked them with imputiny. The best defense is a good offense--the way to keep terrorists from targeting Peacekeepers is to kill them first. FT thinks that a boxing match where one combatant always gets the first hit, doesn't have to wear gloves, and can bring weapons into the ring would somehow be less safe for the other combatant if he takes off the kiddie gloves.To circumvent these issues we could be careful with authorizing the Peacekeepers to use force to maximize our advantage. That doesn't mean that authorization of force is never appropriate. Thirdly he argues impartiality. The big issue with this argument is that his alternative of enforcement operations is way, WAY less impartial. Moreover he doesn't argue an impact here: so what? I don't think it's good for the UN to be impartial in a war between a legitimate government and genocidal insurgents. In situations where impartiality is required to enforce an existing peace the use of force doesn't have to be authorized. That doesn't mean Peacemaking is never necessary. His fourth objection regarding legitimacy can be easily turned. Legitimacy is harmed far more when Peacekeepers refuse to fight--this is why some were slaughtered with impunity in Rwanda. Considering that Peacekeeping operations that don't use force are impotent I see no reason to think that credibility is more undermined by fighting boldly than turning around and running away, leaving civilians behind to die. It's difficult to imagine any situation where my Peacemakers are less respected than Peacekeepers who refuse to fight, and it's highly unlikely that any ragtag militant force could ever prevail over trained Peacemakers with the intent to kill.The big problem with all of his disadvantages is that they only apply to certain situations. None of his arguments negate the resolution in all circumstances. To vote Pro, you just have to acknowledge that if a Peacekeeping unit stumbles upon a group of militants slaughtering civilians they should be empowered to offensively engage them. Vote Pro. Sources: 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com...