The Merit of the US Military Intervention - Essay Example

Our interest in this essay will be to question ourselves in the decision-making process of such intervention and of the realization of this involvement in foreign policy. Military intervention is often considered as the last resort after all political and diplomatic ways to tackle a conflict have been used. Nevertheless, even if these resources have been unsuccessful, a country shall not engage in battle without questioning itself on whether to engage military forces. U.S. foreign policy has shown that this question shall be carefully thought. 

Nevertheless, one shall not consider national interest an excuse to intervene but a reason. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult for Presidents to point out the benefits of such interventions to the public, therefore creating a paradoxical situation where defending vital interests the U.S. Government is faced with people’s lack of understanding and even disapproval of the intervention. Why send our troops so far and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in such a war? As Richard Haass points out in The debate over intervention “ The United States can stay involved either if costs are low or if interest is high”.

In these decision-taking moments, the President could benefit from the support of the public and the Congress, but clearly, it means consulting them which can take away the benefits of the surprise and takes a certain time. Understandingly, the President has to make a quick but well-thought move and also take necessary measures to have both the approval of the public and the Congress if the conflict is meant to last.

This is the reason why while choosing to intervene the President has to set clear objectives which according to Haass, should aim towards a unique goal. The case of the Bosnian war shows the drawback of having several goals at the same time. In 1993-1994, the U.S. military was not able to achieve successful peace-making nor completely efficient humanitarian help.

Knowing the place where the fights are going to take place as much as the enemy is as important as the intervention itself. Though it is vital in a regular intervention, it is even more crucial where the President is considering sending troops to tackle civil wars, revolutions or failed states. Vietnam showed us that without enough data about the field and the adversary, the war is keen to last over and over. As one can never predict what will happen on the battlefield, it is a mistake to try to set up the end of the intervention. This was also a lesson that was learned in Vietnam, soldiers went to fight several weeks and came home years after.

Finally, we should not forget that the opponent is not the only audience and that in case of such interventions we have to consider the other countries who have ties with the one the intervention is supposed to take place and the international political opinion on that intervention.

 Once the decision of intervening is made, it is important to see how this intervention is going to be realized. As we said before, an intervention is considered when all the other diplomatic and political solutions have proved useless. Although, the intervention has to be considered as a last resort, waiting too long to intervene could be a real danger. In 1994, U.S. troops were sent to Sarajevo to protect the Muslim population against the Serbs. Though it was a necessary decision for the Muslims remaining it proved that waiting so long failed to prevent numerous massacres.

The difficult question is the number of men to send during an intervention. Where sending a few bits of help in keeping the public’s support, appears useless and wasteful on the battlefield. Haass clearly states his point of view “Too much force is better than too little”. If the conflict lasts, it is more likely that the loss is going to be heavier. By sending too much, it allows important and separate attacks from the beginning – opposite to gradual attacks which proved inefficient in Vietnam for example -  which will confuse the adversary.   

Added to these measures, the air control and the technology used are strong assets in winning strategic positions but must not be considered as the key factors of victory. These are only meant to ensure victory as Haass points but as proved in The Gulf War with the inefficiency to destroy Iraq’s mobile ballistic missiles, they have to be combined with a ground offensive.

As a conclusion, we shall think back on the past two decades’ U.S. military intervention through the different aspects that we have seen in this essay and draw aside our preconceptions to see these matter as complicated as it is.