History and Debate of Military Intervention
Military intervention is used by the American government to control what the government perceives as a foreign conflict. Military intervention is often the target of protest as well. This multilateral protective intervention has a number of pros and cons.
Military Intervention Debate Pros
Military intervention is often legally sanctioned by an international organization, such as the United Nations. This support and legality allows the actions to be justified and not looked upon negatively by foreign nations. The support also ensures that forces come from around the globe, rather than just from one country. Military intervention is a last resort, used when peaceful methods of intervention are unsuccessful. Military intervention can potentially deter future corrupt and tyrannical governments from developing. Seeing corrupt governments destroyed definitely helps to keep new individuals from creating a similar government.
Cons to the Military Intervention Debate
While there are certainly some great advantages for military intervention, there are also a great deal of disadvantages. Military intervention is an extremely violent and drastic measure that should be undertaken only if extremely necessary. Unfortunately, governments often fail to consider peaceful options, progressing immediately to violence. Due to this desire to immediately choose the violent option, interventions often are not sanctioned. Congress typically does not get a say, nor does the U.N. Ignoring international support and sanctioning often means that the intervention is unsuccessful due to lack of support. There are no troops sent in from other countries, and those responsible for the intervention are often admonished.
Military interventions cause a great deal of deaths of military personnel sent in to eliminate the conflict. There is no international framework in place for military intervention, especially outside of Europe. Without an international framework, decisions and responsibilities are often not well-considered. There is no oversight for the intervention, leading to problems. Without rules and guidance, interventions often fail, whether because of poor strategy or lack of support.
Taken from HERE.
Foreign policy and its consequences will alter events of the international war, peace, and justice. Various actions and propaganda arose once the political spheres determine the occurred outcomes. Military intervention will never cease the possible conflicts from cross-boundaries after the war or interference, as the conjured event from hegemony in governments might easily come from politically motivated movements. Even with those being said, I cannot entirely say I distrust the concept of military intervention; as such, actions might be needed to commence justice. Disclosures of wrongdoings by the raid parties must be disclosed by the international community to attract significance and attention for the better selection of mature actions. The power of supranational organisation should be used to ensure the rationality of operations and its eligibility by law through accords and treaties; therefore, military interventions will never be conducted based on politically motivated actions by parties whom may receive profits such as; power, resources, and economic or military positions.
ReplyDeleteMilitary intervention in domestic or international matters is a very questionable matter in terms of its execution. In most occassions, resorting to military action is a last-choice decision when politics and diplomacy fail to serve their purpose in communicating and negotiating the interests of a nation to another. Military intervention has to be treated not merely as a last resort, but also a matter that needs ultimate avoidance when it is deemed unnecessary. It is at the utmost importance that politicians and diplomats take matters seriously as to communicating and representing a nation’s interest, as the outcome of poor diplomatic skills has always been an unnecessary conflict in which the mortality rate of innocent civilians is at a high percentage.
ReplyDeleteThough it is debatable from a pacifist view that military intervention will actually rid a nation from issues whose solutions cannot be acquired from political and diplomatic intervention as it will have been met by armed resistance, the possibility that a military intervention will successfully solve issues has to be considered. A good example of a successful military intervention is Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise to become Europe’s most formidable conqueror. Not only that he achieved his goals successfully by force, his actions were also supported by the majority of French citizens demanding the abdication of the Bourbon dynasty. Under Napoleon’s leadership, France was once a global superpower whose might was surpassed only by an alliance of Prussia and its allies. Referring to the context, we have to take into account the fact that French citizens were under severe poverty under Louis XVI’s rule, and that gave Napoleon and his entourage of statesmen and military commanders the justification to stage a coup on behalf of the French people.
US has done many military interventions since its emergence as a major superpower after the World War II. But, many of its military intervention is far from the true motive of peacekeeping. For example is the coup of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who nationalized the oil industry in Iran for the prosperity of his people and replaced him with the pro-western tyrant Mohammad Syah Reza Pahlevi. The US also planned many coup in many South American countries and installed dictatorships there. So, I think I disagree with the statement in the article about the purpose of US military intervention is to prevent tyrannical rule. In reality, US government is just putting regimes that could serve US interests.
ReplyDeleteI think military interventions are justifiable if there are genocide and atrocities happened in the conflicting country. For example is when Yugoslavia dissolved and many ethnic cleansing and genocide committed by the warlords. It was the bloodiest conflict in Europe since the World War II. The military intervention in the former Yugoslavia is proven to be successful and has created stability in the Balkan region.
Millitary intervention discussion becomes an attractive topic for the society as it has its pros and cons that are fair enough. In some situations, the actions applied in millitary intervention can easily overcome existing problems. However, some opinions would refuse the commonly used violence of millitary intervention. The aim of using such method is certainly to create peace, safety, and a better 'way out' for inflicting issues. Yet, there are numerous other methods that does not contain harm and violence, instead, diplomacy that promotes tender approach can also be applied. In my point of view, I would not say that the violence of millitary intervention is completely wrong and should be banned for it may be needed in urgent situations. Therefore, regulations that are acknowledged nationally and internationally should be founded along with the discipline of its establishment. Millitary intervention should still put forward the values of humanityand the existing rights owned by others.
ReplyDeleteI believe that military intervention should be deemed as a last resort whose urgency itself is something that no one should ever underestimate, let alone manipulate to further one party’s own petty and selfish interest. To know the atrocities that military interventions bring as they carry the banner of world peace to other people’s homelands, one should look no further than to the history of war. No matter from which period that we’re about to look into, there have always been people whose actions go beyond the motives of their leaders. Notice how soldiers would rape the women from the population of the nation which they have just conquered, or how soldiers would ransack people’s homes for supplies during their crusade for the peace which they had pictured in their minds.
ReplyDeleteNot only that, military interventions merely force international organisations such as the U.N. to acknowledge their own lack of diplomatic skills in keeping the world’s peace. Unless these international organisations swallow the red pill wholeheartedly and aim on fixing themselves, then military interventions will always remain as the most desirable method for one to fall back on to when all else fails.
Lastly, I would like to say that it is really sad indeed when a soldier has to die on other country’s soil and not on his/her own.
Almost every country in the world has a military. A military is a group of people who have the authority to use weapons against a group which poses a threat to it’s country. It is not a militant group and is completely legal as it works hand in hand with the government. It helps prevent the loss of lives ofthe country’s citizens by stopping threats like terrorist attacks and many other harmful crimes. There are many benefits of having the military as it can help control chaotic situations like in 1998 where the “Pribumi” starts raiding the Chinese people. Without the military i believe that the chaos would not stop as peaceful methods was far from effective. If a country is righteous , a country would use military as a last resort. But in reality this is not the case. Most country nowadays tend to use this power to solve most of their problems.
ReplyDeleteThe overuse of military power tend to lead to oppression. This oppression can be to the poor, it’s own citizens or minority groups living in the country. One example of this is the Rohingya case. In Myanmar the people of rohingya is being forced out of the country using brute force. The millitary was behind this and they did this using bute force. They burn the houses of the rohingya people , shoot the men. Indirectly the millitary is slaughtering the rohingya people. This is one example of the misuse of millitary power. This also shows that countries tend to use millitary power to solve everything just because they can. SO what i mean is that they tend to resort to a violent method before trying a peaceful solution. Aside from that this shows that not all of the citizen benefit from the military . The minority groups such as Rohingyas who are muslim in this case gets oppressed forcing them to move to other countries.
Delete