Activator 9/30

Thats how we roll

Can you think of past foreign interventions?Were they successful or not?How do you define success in a foreign intervention?Is it possible to effectively intervene without killing?What are some of the pros of foreign intervention?The cons?

Foreign Intervention: Somalia (1993)A U.S. Army force in Mogadishu attempted to seize two Somalian high-echelon lieutenants during a meeting in the city. Shortly after the assault began, Somali militia and armed civilian fighters shot down two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. The subsequent operation to secure and recover the crews of both helicopters drew the raid, intended to last no more than an hour, into an overnight standoff in the city. The battle resulted in 18 deaths, 80 wounded, and one helicopter pilot captured among the U.S. raid party and rescue forces. One Pakistani soldier and one Malaysian soldier were killed as part of the rescue forces but other resources claims there were more loss of life. American sources estimate between 1,500 and 3,000 Somali casualties, including civilians; SNA forces claim only 315 killed, with 812 wounded.

Lack of foreign intervention: Rwanda (1994)The Rwandan Genocide was a genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority. During the approximate 100-day period from April 7, 1994 to mid-July, an estimated 500,0001,000,000 Rwandans were killed, constituting as much as 20% of the country's total population and 70% of the Tutsi then living in Rwanda.

Foreign Intervention Today: ISIS

As you read, highlight and annotateAt least three different arguments for each article. First article: Arguments for why we should take actionSecond article: Arguments for why we shouldnt take action

Exit CardAs an exit card, I want you to write 4-5 sentences answering these questions:Has your opinion on foreign intervention changed after reading these articles? What is your opinion?What do you think is the most important thing to consider when intervening in foreign affairs?