Ouch...

You don't say much, but when you do... damn tough question, my friend.

You are correct when you say that our intervention in both the Serbian and Hutu genocides were minimalist (at the very best), especially when compared to what we did in Somalia, where at least we had troops on the ground (few as they were, and as handicapped as they were).

I'd have to say that our ability and willingness to intervene in a foreign conflict in defense of the defenseless would be a noble, and perhaps necessary thing, but that it probably shouldn't be an Executive only decision. Presidential powers over the last 100 years have grown enormously, no doubt... but some of our more memorable foreign policy disasters stem from just such "single-handed" decisions. Presidents that send troops or ships first, then ask Congress to extend spending in order to keep them there or increase their numbers is a piss poor manner in which to conduct foreign policy. It is so rare that a President has a friendly Congress anyway... what are the chances that such will ever work out for the best anyway?

The President has a degree of authority with Congress that simply isn't exercised anymore. Take December 8th,1941... less than 36 hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor, all of Congress was together to hear FDR's speech and vote on a Declaration of War... so arguing that the delay and red-tape is too much is simple crap. If the President is privy to intelligence that there is something going on in the world on the order of what Baddboy has listed, then making sure he has the full support of Congress and the people of the United States prior to sending troops or ships (in short, putting American military lives in danger) is the RIGHT thing to do.

Now, to be fair (but not to argue the points Baddboy made about Clinton... I tend to agree with him), had Clinton actually followed this course in the Sudan, or Chad, or Somalia during his terms, especially anything post '95... I don't think he'd have gotten anything done at all either. There was very little that I think the GOP controlled Congress was going to allow that might have distracted from the impeachment fever that swept the House. Does that mean he shouldn't have intervened anyway? He does still have the War Powers Act to give him the 60 days to wage almost unlimited war across the globe, after all...

Tough call, these sorts of "what if" questions...