Michael Ignatieff: political prodigy, or cosmopolitanist simpleton?

I suppose that a lot can be said about Michael Ignatieff's extreme idealist views, but I believe that his views on peacekeeping are simple. Ignatieff's beliefs are jaded in the sense that Cosmopolitanism shouldn't necessarily imply altruism. Extreme idealist, left-wing ideals that cannot be objectively used should not be our framework for peacekeeping and every issue that arises. The preachy idea behind his peacekeeping ideas is all well and good, but he cannot expect to drive a country to police the entire world. International affairs and development are a pertinent issue to be assessed by the respective authorities.
I can't bring myself to praise Ignatieff for his views on peacekeeping. True, peacekeeping is done in the fashion he supports, (e.g. heavy military action) but he acts like he sincerely believes that it is done for the country. I think there are much better ways to go about Generally, peacekeeping is done for the benefactor in this day and age. The vast majority of things we choose to initiate our countries in are done in our own interests.
Ignatieff's cosmopolitan ideas preach the concept of morality in politics, where it cannot prosper. In some ways he operates thinking that people have an obligation to help, when it is all a matter of choice, and it is up to people to decide to be charitable by their own means. The fact that he has a lot of imperialistic ideas sort of detracts from his whole objective way of looking at foreign affairs is sort of hypocritical. I mean, look at how he's a post-modernist. The basic way doing things through imperialism--which first of all means to uphold unequal economic trade-- implies that there are inequalities, but he still thinks defending everyone's moral interests is important. So overall, I think he's not quite the prodigy he seems among the extreme leftists.