Military intervention is almost always used solely as a last resort when diplomacy fails and military intervention can be justified. Not all acts of military intervention occur between massive nations and nations that cannot defend themselves. Although sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states are fundamental principles of the international system, intervention by external powers in the affairs of other states occur frequently during civil wars. Many civil wars have prompted diplomatic, economic or military interventions by foreign powers.
Military action, in any context, should not be taken lightly. But neither should standing by and proposing measures that have, like in Syria, so far failed to work.
Opponents of intervention need to explain how staying the current course—hoping that diplomacy might work when it has not for nearly a year—is likely to resolve an increasingly deadly civil war. There was a bit of wishful thinking going on that Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, might somehow be persuaded to stop the killing and negotiate in good faith with an opposition that, for its part, wants nothing less than to see him dead.
A diplomatic solution would obviously be preferable—if it were possible. A military coup against Mr Assad is a godsend. Because protests and unrest continued, the Syrian government began launching major military operations to suppress resistance. On 25 April, Daraa, which had become a focal point of the uprising, was one of the first cities to be besieged by the Syrian. About 600 people were arrested during the crackdown. By 5 May, most of the protests had been suppressed, and the military began pulling out of Daraa. However, some troops remained to keep the situation under control. Another example could be the the First Gulf Was which was a military intervention to prevent then Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from invading oil rich countries such as Kuwait to build a middle eastern empire that could control all oil exports. When Saddam Hussein overran Kuwait, Kuwait appealed to the international community.
There was a consensus among nations that there should be military intervention, and it was the US who led most of the charge. barely 100 hours later the war was over. WWII was military intervention when Hitler aggressively began to annex independent countries in Europe such as Austria, Belgium, Poland, France, parts of North Africa etc. and countries declared war to prevent such expansion after diplomacy failed. The US entered WWII following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to prevent the Japanese from occupying islands and territories throughout the Pacific, along with the Korean Peninsula and parts of China. that were themselves defenseless Military intervention in Somalia under President Clinton was performed in order to ensure that food and supplies could be given to Somalis who were devastated by a vicious drought and to prevent what food did make it into the country from being seized by the government and only distributed to those loyal to their forces Military intervention from the US in the Vietnam War came about when the Northern communist Vietnam tried to invade and overrun the much weaker and smaller democratic southern Vietnam. The Korean War was an example of military intervention when the US and Japan stepped in to prevent the Communist North from overrunning the Democratic South. That ended in a stalemate when China then intervened to prevent North Korea from being overrun by the Democratic South and its allies.
The Bosnian War started with the breakup of Yugoslavia where warring factions began fighting over territory which soon led to a humanitarian crisis as ethnic cleansing caused the deaths of millions. NATO and the US intervened with the military to bring an end to the crisis and bring peace to the region. Almost all military interventions are/were ethical because they resolved a very dangerous situation that could not be accomplished with diplomacy or any other means of negotiation…….
To say that military intervention is unethical because it is always between a superior nation and a defenseless nation to carry out their own agenda is an insult to world peace The results we are looking for, peace stability, prosperity, cannot always be enforced by those who are intervening. People within the conflict zone must be willing to exert just as much energy to try to give themselves a better future. Military intervention gives them the opportunity for a better future, but ultimately only the people within the conflict zone can give themselves a better future. No amount of diplomatic or military intervention can do that, it depends on the people.
In this case military intervention can still be considered a better method to counter civil unrest because we currently have not developed another solution to the problem and instead are just using the same tactics that have been proven before in different situations. Military intervention is not being used because powerful nations like to use it to bully other smaller countries and take advantage of them, it is being used simply because we lack the option of a better solution.
Cite this Military intervention
Military intervention. (2016, May 16). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/military-intervention/