International Interventions - Assignment Example

International Interventions of Affiliation International Interventions Are we giving ourselves too much credit forNATO’s “success” in the Libya operation? Asserting that United States is giving itself much credit for NATO’s success in the Operation Unified Protector is not justified in any manner. Credit must be given where it is due, hence the immense contribution of United States in Libya’s military intervention cannot be disregarded. To begin with, it is undeniable fact that out of the 14 member states that participated in the NATO operation, United States made the greatest contribution.

Most of these nations relied on U.S. to meet their deficiencies in the operation. For instance, Washington took up the burden of offering roughly three-quarters of the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information that was indispensable in the protection of the civilians as well as reinforcing the arms embargo. Washington further went ahead to provide 75 percent of the refueling of planes that were heavily employed in the mission (Carvin, 2011). In the absence of this monumental support, one would be left wondering how strike aircrafts would have approached probable targets or how they would have rapidly responded to calls for urgent civilian protection.

That notwithstanding, the operation relied on the expertise of American military personnel dispatched all the way from Europe. This was occasioned when it became apparent that other NATO member states lacked the technical skills on providing their aircraft with accurate target data (Dadlder and Stavridis, 2012). In conclusion, in as much as U.S. contribution was outstanding, downplaying the contribution of the other member states would be a tragedy and simply sign of ingratitude. For instance, France and UK are credited for their role in the destruction of nearly a third of total targets.

Similarly, Italy and Greece provided the aircrafts that played a critical role in the reconnaissance. The rest of the member states, apart from providing other technical skills, equally deployed their combat forces on the battle field (Dadlder and Stavridis, 2012). The Simon et al “Sovereignty Solution” is radical. But is it also the right one for principle future intervention? Simon et al advocates for sovereignty that demands that every state take full charge of its citizens and their actions.

In other words, in as much as states insist on sovereignty, they must be sure enough to control the activities of their citizens such that they do not violate the sovereignty of other states. Nonetheless, in the event that citizen(s) from a state in question violate the regulations and go ahead to cause harm to another sovereign state, then it is the absolute mandate of that state to respond appropriately against such acts. In other words, Simon et al indicate that the actions of United States towards a given nation, whose citizens or non-state actors have threatened U.S.’s national security, would be determined by the response of cooperation or not cooperation received as a feedback to an earlier request (Simons et al., 2007). In my opinion, the radicalism of “Sovereignty Solution” is not the path to pursue in guiding the future interventions.

It is the absolute mandate of United States to understand that these nations are sovereign and have the duty to protect their citizens. The idea of setting conditions and presetting anticipated answers in simply infringement of other nation’s sovereignty status. In addition, U.S. would be acting like a dictator thanks to its economic and military prowess. However, as a solution to such cases, United States should begin by pursuing diplomacy and cooperation at all costs in eliminating the illegal groups.

The idea of intervening forcefully simply because the unexpected answer was received my serve to create more adversaries rather than allies. References Carvin, A. (2012, February 24). Gadhafis Compound Slowly Being Erased From History. Retrieved April 10, 10, from the two-way: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/24/147376148/gadhafis-compound-slowly-being-erased-from-history Dadlder, I. and Stavridis, J.G. (2012). NATOS Victory in Libya; the right way to run an intervention. Retrieved from: http://www.

foreignaffairs.com/articles/137073/ivo-h-daalder-and-james-g-stavridis/natos-victory-in-libya Simons, A. et al. (2007).The Sovereignty Solution; a commonsense approach to global security. New York, NY: Naval Press. United States of America (2013). National Security Strategy. Washington, DC: Government Press.