Introduction
Hook: Since he was a child, Jackson was a smart, brave, and cheerful son who grew into a selfless adult. He was sure of himself and confident in what he believed in. After high school, he enlisted into the military. At twenty-two he married his high school sweetheart and soon had a daughter on the way. Deployed internationally for the first time, he contacted his family from Afghanistan for as often as he could. One week before his daughter’s second birthday, Jackson sent the last letter he would ever send to his family. On November 07, 2010, Jackson was pronounced dead in the following days leaving behind a wife and child to grieve. Men like Jackson lost their lives for nothing more than a stalemate in a game of attempted peacekeeping. Although an American hero should be honored as such, Jackson’s name became only one of the 2,371 names honored that died in Afghanistan (Crawford, “Costs of War”).
Background information:
The controversy: There are various disagreements on how America should support global peacekeeping with U.S. troops if at all. The United States has sent military support in the form of U.S. troops to support international peacekeeping causing both public praise and backlash. Not all interventions are successful and have multiple results that may be less than ideal.
Relevance and history: Foreign disputes and wars are constantly occurring and our intervention in these wars can be seen as early as the Vietnam war in the 1960s. The U.S. government currently involves themselves in maintaining international peace, and has sent many troops in aim for global peace in the past decade.
Thesis: Sending U.S. troops to support global peacekeeping wastes a large amount of our money and can end up resulting in American casualties. Because of these factors, U.S intervention in global peacekeeping should not include sending American troops.
Body paragraphs
Topic Sentence: The shipment of American troops helps the foreign country by bringing security and in turn benefits the United States by creating allies.
Counter Argument #1: American troops bring a sense of security to the locals of foreign countries and create stability in the conflicted area.
Rebuttal: Although troops may create stability, they also create more problems in foreign countries than good as seen in Iraq.
American troops in Iraq only encouraged more fighting and means to continue the war.
Despite common thought, troops were not needed to help the Iraq conflict (Eland, “The United States Should Not Intervene In Iraq”).
Counter argument #2: Sending troops benefits the U.S. by creating allies.
Military presence supporting peace in other countries leads to a likelier chance of creating and maintaining alliances (Thayer, “The U.S. Military Presence Around the World is Essential for Security”).
Rebuttal: The United States sending troops that create trouble will not be wanted in an alliance.
Soldiers have been found guilty of war crimes against innocent people in Afghanistan. (Healy, “Apology but no explanation, for massacre of Afghans”)
Soldiers on various peacekeeping missions from 2003 to 2014 were wanted by the ICC to be tried for war crimes. (Gladstone et al., “Hague Court May Charge U.S. Forces With Torture”).
Point One: If America sends troops to foreign countries, it will cost the U.S. in money and soldiers’ lives.
Claim: An incident in history surrounding the “Battle of Mogadishu” situation in Africa cost the lives of American soldiers.
Evidence: In 1993, a mission in Africa ended with the death of 18 American soldiers after two Black Hawk helicopters crashed and a fight broke out (Mullen, “The U.S. and Somalia: From 'Black Hawk Down' to John Kerry's visit”).
Explanation: The mission was meant to reduce conflict and install peace into the area by taking out a group terrorists in Mogadishu, Somalia. This example represents the death that follows sending US troops into foreign situations concerning peacekeeping.
Claim: The United States spends a mass amount of money funding global peacekeeping.
Evidence: The United States financially aids a large majority of peacekeeping missions with other countries because it has such large funds. Billions of dollars have been spent on foreign countries and keeping security within them (Bearak and Gamino, “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the U.S. Foreign Assistance Budget”).
Explanation: Money spent sending troops away could be used for the American people and not on outside missions that are costly to the U.S.
Point Two (Reason): Sending American military troops is ineffective or detrimental towards the foreign country we send troops to.
Claim: In history, sending our military troops to support and enforce global peacekeeping made no difference and had negative results.
Evidence: The Vietnam War was entered by the United States in 1965. Despite the best efforts of American troops the war ended with the eventual communist takeover all over Vietnam and the failure of the United States (Hochgesang, Josh, et al., “The Psychological Effects of the Vietnam War”).
Explanation: If sending troops the support international peacekeeping did not work in 1965 then there is no reason for it to work now. The Vietnam War is seen as a mistake and known as a failure.
Claim: In recent events, sending troops to promote global peacekeeping makes no difference even after years of fighting.
Evidence: The disputes and fighting in the Middle East have been going on since the war on terrorism in the early 2000s and has come up with little results.
Explanation: Despite years of U.S. military troop involvement, there are still American soldiers in the Middle East. This shows the lack of advancement made by sending troops to foreign countries.
Conclusion: Summary + reassert position
The shipment of American troops overseas and to other countries has only been detrimental to other governments and ourselves. Military troops lose their lives, are costly, and may be ineffective.
U.S. involvement in global peacekeeping should not include sending American troops.
The United States is a proud country that believes it should be able to fix and solve problems around the world. It only makes sense that we try and bring international peace using our resources. However, America and its citizens can only stand to loose so much. Sending American troops to support international peacekeeping is something that should not be done based on our country’s history and current losses.