Debate.org members
Military Intervention Debates
Military Intervention Debates
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.
For Military Intervention
Pro
Comment: In some cases, any country has a moral duty to assist the citizens of another country. Generally, though, military intervention is done for the wrong reasons. For example, greed, or paranoia--not alturism.
Comment: In some cases sure.. Not in all cases.
Comment: Intervention is fine when it is necessary for the preservation of the safety and progress of American society and its people.
Comment: If we (or our allies) are being attacked, will be attacked, or are being asked to help for humanitarian reasons.
Comment: Military is the only way to get things done.
Comment: The U.S. is a World Power and should be used for world good.
Comment: Destroy enemies before they destroy you.
Comment: I believe there are certain situations in which military intervention may be considered a moral obligation; however, I do not support military interventions that are non-altruistic in nature. Furthermore, I submit that military intervention should be employed strictly as a last resort and only after all other peaceful alternatives have been considered.
Comment: As a soldier I'm obviously going to be biased to some degree, but I believe that in some cases where loss of life can be stopped or lessened that military intervention should be considered.
Comment: If someone with power abuses human rights, the big kid on the block needs to step in and help those who cannot help themselves.
Against Military Intervention
Con
Comment: I assume that intervention implies preventive war. If it becomes clear that another nation is hostile and will attack I don't mind striking first, but I consider that war not intervention...
Comment: Only if it directly affects National Security.
Comment: Most intervention in the past few decades have not been necessary, and have been done illegal through undeclared wars. Because of this, and current events that are happening in the world, I am against military intervention right now. This does not mean that there are no just military interventions that could arise in the future though.
Comment: Only in cases where national security, human rights, and other issues are at stake. I believe in peace through a balance of military strength and good diplomacy. Moreover, too much military force can also be bad.
Comment: When it is used it drags the US into prolonged conflicts 9 out of 10 times
Comment: I agree with it in a few cases of extreme genocide (i.e. Rwanda), but nation-building is unconstitutional, wasteful, and destructive.
Comment: Non-Interventionist
Comment: I tend to be against warfare on a whole.
Comment: In almost all cases.
Comment: Only in the defense of ourselves and others.

