Military Response To Civil Conflict
Cody Daniels
POLS 170
Critical Thinking Question #4
The argument for military response to civil conflict is mostly upheld by a commitment made by the member states of the United Nations in 2005. This commitments intention was to prevent war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. This policy combined with any example of such military response, such as the offensive against Qaddafi, brings with it an international implication meant to deter such crimes from taking place. The arguments against such military response imply that such a commitment cannot be guaranteed to protect everyone in every nation around the world. This implies that though military force may be used in the name of humanitarianism, special interests are really
in the driver’s seat of such intervention thus making some crimes against humanity more ‘important’ than others. Other arguments against military intervention in response to civil conflicts include violating the rights of states to have sovereignty over domestic issues. It would certainly be a wonderful world if we could find and eliminate those who continue to commit crimes against humanity, but sadly that is not the reality that we live in. Of course we can pick and choose the crimes that do go punished, but many of these crimes will continue to be committed and go unpunished all across the world. Since this ‘pick and choose’ way of intervention would most likely be influenced by special interest the question of whether or not we are forcing ourselves into others’ matters for the right reasons comes up. As we know special interest and business seem to be the main influences on our international politics one would think a less exploitable way of intervention would be possible. Terrible things happen all over the globe every day, and no amount of military intervention is going to fully stop these things from occurring. States should be allowed to play out internal conflict without outside intervention, and if such intervention is needed let it be diplomatic instead of militaristic.
POLS 170
Critical Thinking Question #4
The argument for military response to civil conflict is mostly upheld by a commitment made by the member states of the United Nations in 2005. This commitments intention was to prevent war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. This policy combined with any example of such military response, such as the offensive against Qaddafi, brings with it an international implication meant to deter such crimes from taking place. The arguments against such military response imply that such a commitment cannot be guaranteed to protect everyone in every nation around the world. This implies that though military force may be used in the name of humanitarianism, special interests are really
in the driver’s seat of such intervention thus making some crimes against humanity more ‘important’ than others. Other arguments against military intervention in response to civil conflicts include violating the rights of states to have sovereignty over domestic issues. It would certainly be a wonderful world if we could find and eliminate those who continue to commit crimes against humanity, but sadly that is not the reality that we live in. Of course we can pick and choose the crimes that do go punished, but many of these crimes will continue to be committed and go unpunished all across the world. Since this ‘pick and choose’ way of intervention would most likely be influenced by special interest the question of whether or not we are forcing ourselves into others’ matters for the right reasons comes up. As we know special interest and business seem to be the main influences on our international politics one would think a less exploitable way of intervention would be possible. Terrible things happen all over the globe every day, and no amount of military intervention is going to fully stop these things from occurring. States should be allowed to play out internal conflict without outside intervention, and if such intervention is needed let it be diplomatic instead of militaristic.