Armed Intervention Criteria - Essay Example

What are the criteria to be considered in armed interventions? The effectiveness of armed intervention has been proved through history whist its success is unpredictable. The United States has demonstrated its success in World War II when it helped eliminate Hitler. On the other hand, US also had its defeat in its failed guerrilla warfare in Vietnam for 8 years. In the instances cited, the success or failure of armed intervention has nothing to do with the need for the action. According to the text provided, human have “propensity to engage in warfare – an organized use of force of one group of people against another – is one of the things human beings behave in common, however tragic the consequences.

” Hillen (1996) reported that “deciding when, where and how to intervene with military force presents a truly perplexing set of questions.” It is even more difficult to decide and take focus on national strategy when military resources are limited. There are several measures that are considered before an armed intervention is deemed necessary. First criterion is the national security interests. Hillen (1996) mentioned that the military should defend the national security interests and “President and Congress must recognize that not all national interests are equally important.

They must also acknowledge that not all national interests are national security interests that require military intervention.” Second criterion is sovereignty. Haass (2003) reported that “When a government fails to live up to these responsibilities or abuses its prerogatives, it risks forfeiting its sovereign privileges — including, in extreme cases, its immunity from armed intervention.” In addition, Jackson (2008) mentioned that “Under international law and normal customs, states are prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs unless the legitimate government requests aid.

The only exception would be if self-defense to an aggressive act by that state.” The third criterion is human rights. The protection of human rights has been one of the main reasons of military use. In September 1999, the United States has already declared that states bent on criminal behaviour should “know that frontiers are not an absolute defense that massive and systematic violations of human rights, wherever they may take place, should not be allowed to stand." (Haass, 2003). The fourth criterion is the expected net effect on the human condition.

This criterion considers the “devastating effect of armed intervention in human life, private property, and long term effects on the surviving soldiers and civilians after the armed conflict is well established.” (Jackson, 2008). The last criterion is the multilateralism or how the nation influence popular opinion and political support. Hillen (1996) took example of former President Clinton who made a habit of circumventing the Congress in deciding to undertake armed interventions. The criteria identified boil down to one determining factor, the reflection of the country’s national character or group thinking.

The criteria mentioned do not usually conflict with each other unless used to its maximum extent. For example, in protecting the national borders, the country may train and station several troops scattered in pertinent areas. However, even though the real battle has not yet even started, the presence of the military may cause terror among citizens living in their zones. Or the overuse of military for domestic or internal use may have adverse effects on the sovereignty of the nation. If I would be president of the country, I should first and foremost identify the core competencies of the US military before deciding on the criteria.

After identifying the scope of responsibilities of the military, I can say that all criteria can be given into consideration in deciding to initiate an armed intervention. However, all the criteria do not come in the instance all at the same time. A priority list among the criteria should be made. As president, I would first ensure the protection of human rights of the citizens and the second would be safeguarding national interests. Say for example if a dispute on the national borders arose with neighbouring countries, military will be the best way to handle the situation on top of every table battle.

However if genocide of man slaughter would occur, I think it is of higher importance to value the lives of the people than to keep fighting. In the instance of genocide, we can say that armed intervention was a failure, and a compromise between neighbouring countries should have been done instead.ReferencesBurkle, Jr., F. (2005). Difficult Discussions: Military Intervention and United Nation Reform. University of Wisconsin – Madison. Retrieved from http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/Volume_21/issue_4/burkle.

pdfHaass, R. (2003). Armed Intervention: When Nations Forfeit their Sovereign Privileges. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/opinion/07iht-edhaass.html Hillen, J. (1996). American Military Intervention: A User’s Guide. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/05/bg1079nbsp-american-military-intervention-a-users-guide Johnson, J. (2008). Which Criteria Should the President Use to Decide on Armed Intervention? Retrieved from http://gotmine9.blogspot.com/2008/05/which-criteria-should-president-use-to.html