- In other words, let's get real. Let's not pretend we care about the possibility of future genocide in Iraq if we do little or nothing about it where it's already happening now.
- "[...]now realpolitik has entered the world of genocide calculations. For one thing, after Rwanda, after the former Yugoslavia, and during Darfur, there seems to be an emerging consensus, or at least an unspoken shared assumption, that genocide is not the exception but the rule in human affairs. The past century, from the Armenians to the Jews to the Rwandans, from Bosnia to the Congo to Darfur, certainly makes it seem that way.
- And now that genocide seems so common, the word seems to have lost some of its special power to move us, to shock us into action.
- As a result, even if you call the chaos and killing that might follow troop withdrawal genocide, it's not enough to derail the exit. Genocide: Happens all the time, we can't be paralyzed by the word."
- Argument: Preventing genocide in Iraq is a legitimate use of US troops Seán Kreyling. "Preventing Genocide: not a reason to use military force?" - "While the senator is correct when he says that preventing genocide is not currently a criteria for U.S. decision making, the question I hope readers will ask themselves is: if preventing genocide is not a legitimate reason to use American military power, then what is? Furthermore, with regard to genocide, does the United States have a either a moral or legal obligation to act? Does our refusal to prevent genocide either strengthen or detract from: Our national power? Our ability to influence the international community? Our ability to accomplish our national goals?"
- Argument: Withdrawing and allowing genocide to occur in Iraq would undermine US soft power Seán Kreyling. "Preventing Genocide: not a reason to use military force?" - "Regarding our credibility, I believe the quintessential American strengths - soft power concepts such as democracy, legitimacy, transparency, and liberty - will come to be seen as merely the empty rhetoric of the world’s only remaining superpower, if genocide occurs in Iraq, and the U.S. takes no decisive action.
This, in turn, will lessen our international influence even further, by reducing the incentive for allies and potential allies to cooperate and to follow our lead. On this note, it is important to keep in mind what lessening our influence in the international system puts at risk. The current international system - a system comprised of U.S. dominated multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, G8, WTO, etc. - has been in place since the late 1940s, mainly due to the efforts of United States. At the behest of Washington, these multilateral regimes have promoted trade liberalization, open capital markets, and nuclear nonproliferation, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for six decades — with untold benefits for the U.S.
Simply put, losing influence in the international system jeopardizes these hard-won benefits."
- Argument: US troops should not be used in Iraq as a buffer against genocide' Obama told the Associated Press, "If [genocide is] the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done."