I am reading a fascinating book in which author David Rieff makes the distinction between a moral and political/military responses to genocide in Rwanda (1994) and the atrocities in Somalia (1993) . In At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention Rieff claims that the United Nations has responded to such crises using military and political means, but has left out morality. This issue has fallen upon the humanitarian agencies and cultural icons. But Rieff also upholds that the seemingly moral crusade and the political decisions of the UN frequently get confused and muddle the minds of the public. How does a humanitarian agency's work, for example the Doctors Without Borders, coincide with UN action? Is having separate moral and political action a workable compromise? Rieff says these separate goals haven't worked, and will not work in the future.