Argument Against Military Intervention For Humanitarian Relief

Syria’s civil war is the worst humanitarian crisis of modern time. The “Syrian Civil war Began in March of 2011, between rebel brigades and government force; economy and infrastructure is destroyed” (Library, 2016). “Divisions between secular and religious fighters, and between ethnic groups, continue to complicate the politics of the conflict” (Corps, 2016). Additionally, the Syrian civil war has taken a significant

This memo seeks to offer insight into the current emergency in Syria and how it threatens the security of US. It is hoped that it will help shape US foreign policy for Syria with the aim of protecting Americans from acts of terrorism and at the same time save the lives of Syrians.

As the rifle and machine gun fire exchanges in the Syrian Civil War not only lives are lost but many innocent men, women and children are left in need of emergency care. Cecily Hilleary, a traveling journalist for VOA World News, mentions “the United Nations estimates the civil war raging in Syria has left more than 2.5 million people in dire need of food, water, drugs and medical supplies,” not including the already 25,000, and counting, deceased from the war (VOA par. 9). The medical aid is minimal in Syria due to the low number of volunteers and medical staff. Cecily tells the stories of crowded hospitals with over 250-350 beds being piled up upon with hurt Syrian individuals, many being innocent women and

Growing up in Iraq, I endured my homeland’s journey through a difficult period in its history. No one was unaffected: civilians’ lives were disrupted by years of wars and detrimental economic sanctions, but amid the destruction, I saw the good in my community. I witnessed a massive humanitarian effort led by healthcare professionals, as physicians worked to meet the medical needs in my town. My dreams were shaped by this exposure, and ever since, I’ve hoped to join these doctors in their efforts.

To understand the impact of humanitarian crises and how international politics play a role, a common definition of such crises must be understood. In his book “Humanitarian Crises and the International

"Healing Invisible Wounds of the Syrian Conflict." Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 94, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 6-7.

American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop

For many years people have argued whether or not the U.S. should intervene in situations where people are suffering. Some people say we should be cautious of intervening in foreign countries. While some people say intervention could help change the world. After reading multiple sources, it is evident that the U.S. should intervene in situations where people in other countries are suffering, even if it means going to war. The U.S. should intervene in these situations because it can help influence our principles of democracy and it will overall help all of humanity.

The United States is nearly $18.5 trillion in debt and can hardly support its own citizens, let alone a new influx of Syrian refugees. This year, it cost the U.S. $1.1 billion to bring 70,000 refugees to our country, which is roughly $15,714 per person (Somanader). Those who claim that the U.S. is behind in their efforts to assist Syrians during this crisis are very wrong; the U.S. government has been, and is currently, leading the world in response to the issue at hand, providing $4.5 billion towards healthcare and basic necessities for those suffering in Syria and its neighboring countries. We are already “the world’s largest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid” and simply cannot afford to use our resources to both

​The non-legitimacy of the humanitarian intervention is evident whereby, the invasion in Iraq by the US, Great Britain along with other coalition forces turned out to be disastrous. This is because, it aggravated the humanitarian crisis and also had a major political, military, legal, economic and strategic consequences. Even though Saddam Hussein did not set any fires to the Iraqi oil fields or use the alleged weapons related to mass destruction, the war had numerous serious results that ranged from death along with destruction in Iraq, and also led to regional instability (Wehrey, 2010), despite the fact that itdid not take long.

In Syria, attacks on medical personnel is particularly serious. A vast number of medical facilities have been wiped out and completely destroyed. When medical personnel come to the rescue of seemingly innocent civilians after a city has been bombed, those first

The Iraq War was not a humanitarian intervention, but a humanitarian war. Humanitarian invention mainly consists of threats, and the United States made the decision to physically intervene in Iraq’s affairs. The United States main reason to go to war with Iraq was not motivated by humanitarian needs. Bush and his administration made the decision to declare war on Iraq for the sole purpose of preventing the weapons

In this essay’s scope, the Syrian war has been analyzed using the just war theory. The just war theory highlights situations where waging a war can be justifiable and also provides guidelines on how a war should be fought. In as much as the theory recognizes the need to protect innocent human life even when it involves the use of force, the theory puts in place several principles that need to be met to qualify a war as being just. As for the Syrian situation, the bone of contention is whether the proposed US military intervention is justifiable or not. Those who are for a US military intervention observe that the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention. They point out that an intervention would protect further loss of innocent human life. Those against such a move point out some guidelines that have not been met to merit such an intervention as a just

Syrian civil war started in 2011 was the outcome of the opposition against the President Bashar al-Assad regime. The uprising emerged as a response to the Arab spring movement that lead to regime change in Tunisia and subsequently turned into mass unrest rooted into the discontent with long-term dictatorship and poor economic situation in the country (Manfreda, n.d.). The number of Syrian citizens killed in the civil war reached 140000 since March 2011 (SBS 2014). The European Commission (2014, 2) reports approximately 9.3 million civilians “in need for humanitarian assistance”. The scale of armed rebellion between government and opposition that lead to an increasing number of casualties among civilians did not remain unnoticed by the

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will