On the Issue of US Intervention

I realize that others have written posts on this issue, and that is a controversial one, but I feel that I should put it into my own words. It's an issue far broader than a wave of the Presidents hand, and I feel I should start at the beginning. First, most superpowers used their power for personal gain. Up until the United States and the establishment of the UN, most nations could care less about the suffering of other nations, especially ones so 'insignificant' as Rwanda. The United States is the first world power that actually cared about aiding nations in dire straits. When European powers held the reins they took advantage of the world, including Rwanda, and abused it for their own economic gain and political prestige. Soviet Russia sought only to expand its political doctrine and military power across the globe. I could list dozens of examples throughout history, but I don't wish to ramble. The analysis one can draw seems fairly clear to me, and that is no nation before the United States of America cared enough to sacrifice their own money, supplies, and manpower for others. The whole idea of international is fairly knew, emerging less than a half century before the Rwanda conflict. Now, on to Rwanda. As I many have said, the situation in Rwanda was a horrid one. Hundreds of thousands perished for paltry reasons but situations that seem relatively clear cut to us now seem muddled and convoluted to those in the moment, especially when making a claim as significant as genocide. So, to mobilize a force of US soldiers on a muddled basis is not feasible. Look at Iraq, when we entered with intel on WMD's that didn't exist. The backlash was huge. No one wants that on their shoulders. Next, one should look at the political climate of the mid-1990's. In the dawn of the decade the US felt invincible, a hyperpower who defeated the evil empire of the USSR. The first Gulf War only affirmed the idea, as the US handily defeated the Iraqi military. That climate of invincibility was dashed in 1993, during the UN intervention in Somalia. Think of it as the 9/11 for foreign peacekeeping interventions. 18 US special forces were killed in a peacekeeping operation in Somalia, protecting aid workers who were delivering food to plague ridden Somalia, where hundreds of thousands had already died, death on a Biblical scale. The battle, popularized as 'Black Hawk Down' was a wake up call to America and caused political unrest at home. When political instability began to rear its ugly head in Rwanda, one can imagine the feelings of the US. The situation echoed Somalia's: anarchy, warlords, death on a large scale. The racial tensions between Tutsis and Hutus were underestimated. When Belgian troops were killed, the same dissenting voices that can be heard about todays War in Iraq exclaimed "Why should we be here? What is the reason to shed American blood in a country thousands of miles away?". Keep in mind America is a democracy, and the President cannot just do whatever he wants. Although it sounds cold and mechanical to say this, there was no 'incentive' (political, economic, etc) to intervene. Keep in mind this was before knowledge of the massacres came to light. Now I personally find it ridiculous to call the Rwandan genocide the fault of America. No American slaughtered Tutsis with machetes. I also resent the racial ideas perpetrated in the film. The evacuations were for foreign nationals. If those nationals were light skinned and the citizens of Rwanda dark skinned, it is merely coincidence. The genocide itself was a tragedy, but blaming the United States for it is not logical. I don't wish to beat a dead horse, so I'll end my post here. Feel free to disagree with me, as I am only presenting my opinion.