Weapons For Peace?

The New York Times article I read, talks about how The United Nations Security Council unanimously approved to send up to 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur and how now the Sudanese government is hesitating with getting non-African troops. As I was reading the article, I started thinking if this really is the way to go; do more soldiers in a country facing a genocide truly help the situation? Are soldiers the real weapon for peace? How about diplomacy, negotiation, and consultation? Has the situation in Darfur really gone so far that there is nothing we can do without more armed forces and guns?
I would like to think that there is always something we can do, that there is always a way for diplomacy to solve conflicts. Unfortunately, though, I feel that there are some conflicts in the world that are not feasible to solve without any forces, or at least without a detrimental amount of humanitarian loss. On the other hand, I think that negotiation and diplomacy should not be put aside when trying to solve conflicts. Military forces such as peacekeepers should strongly cooperate with diplomats, and maybe then we can bring global conflicts like Darfur and Israel-Palestine to an end. The real weapons for peace are not guns, but well trained peacekeepers together with negotiators and consulates.