Aborted

When criticising the UN, I think it's helpful to keep in mind that the US is by far the largest vetoer of it's resolutions, so it's lack of effectiveness as a global body can, in part, be traced back to the frequent undermining of it's authority at American hands. Until all countries recognise that UN authority supercedes the authority of the nation state, I doubt we'll see much of an improvement.

In answer to the original question: a firm no. What the country needs is African troops to take up peacekeeping duties and help look after all those thousands of refugees who, at present, have to choose between a slow death by starvation inside their camps, or a quick one at the hands of the Janjaweed. US troops are far too distancing for the job, in my opinion, because of their unwillingness to accept casualties on their own side, their "shoot first, ask question later" engagement policy, and their insistance on wearing helmets and reflective goggles all the time. It might seem like an odd point to make but, as the British have found in Basra, wearing the far less aggressive beret and being able to look people in the eye actually makes a big difference when you're trying to win the trust of people who see you as unwelcome. It's for a similar reason that I think the troops should be African; troops native to the continent are far likelier to strike a chord with people than foreign (white) soldiers.

I'm not necessarily criticising American military tactics, I just don't think they're suitable in this instance.