Military Intervention Debate

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

There are a number of advantages to military intervention. First and foremost, military intervention can potentially save hundreds or even thousands of lives. When a government or terrorist organization is inflicting pain and death upon civilians, military intervention can often stop the damage. Along those same lines, military intervention can also force corrupt foreign governments to disband and step down, saving countries from corruption and harm.

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.

What's your position? Add your comment.
Not Saying
Undecided
No Opinion
Con/Against
Pro/For

For Military Intervention

Pro
41% of members
View All

Against Military Intervention

Con
59% of members
View All