Foreign Intervention : International Conflicts

Second, intervention results in nearly constant warfare with foreign countries. This is also testified to by our recent history. According to the site Infoplease, since World War II the U.S. has been involved in 14 major conflicts, including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. Since the 1950,67 years ago The US has spent 38 years in a state of warfare. Out of 67 years, we’ve had only 29 years of peace.If you think about 38 years of war is a lot and debt is off the roof if more wars would occur.One thing to know is none of these wars were fought in defense on the US meaning US had to

Should the United States enter into military intervention in foreign countries for humanitarian reason? Why? Why not? Under what conditions should the U.S. intervene if at all?

When problems arise people step up and take responsibility. Like in the quote from Elie Wiesel, human suffering really is everyone’s problem. In war and times of conflict, America has intervened because they believe that it is their problem to try and solve. This is evident through speeches in World War I, propaganda in World War II, letters during Vietnam, biographies concerning the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and speeches from the War on Terror.

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

Monroe Doctrine: statement issued by President James Monroe stating that the Western Hemisphere was off limits to further European intervention

Imagine living in a world where your own homeland is under attack and you can’t rely on any other parts of the world to send you help. There are a multitude of reasons as to why we urgently need the interventionism policy in the United States. One of the biggest reasons would be while the Holocaust was occurring in Germany we were well aware about it, but didn’t come to intervene until it was too late. Along with this, another reason would be to maintain the allies that we have. Although the United States needs to consider the financial and human costs, overall it should follow a foreign policy of interventionism when it’s necessary to prevent humanitarian catastrophe and to maintain our allies.

American foreign policy relates to what is done in foreign countries by the United States of America. The foreign policies include controlling of the governments of foreign countries or setting some rules in those countries. The foreign policy of America has always been changing all through the US existence. The changes have stemmed from the dynamics of exogenous and substantial influences of watershed up to the international system and also the effects and changes of endogenous inside the government of the United States. Outstanding assertions like the policies of Monroe, intercontinental encounters such as the Second World War, War of the Spanish and Americans, and the cold war and also conflicts that were termed as local including the Korean War and the Vietnam War considerably shaped the American foreign policy (Kissinger et al., 1969).

In the years leading up to and during the Iraq War, the United States pursued a neo-conservative agenda that aimed to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s regime, eliminate the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and install a democratic government in Iraq. To do so, U.S. policymakers deployed military forces and diplomatic ambassadors to intervene. This strategy, clearly seen during the early invasion in 2003 and the surge of 2007, produced mixed reactions. Indeed, more than a decade after the U.S. decision to mediate, the question remains: Can intervention actually work?

[2] When determining US policy, diplomatic and economic tools of statecraft should be more readily deployed than military intervention for the purpose of genocide prevention and mitigation. As interventionist Samantha Power notes in her book, A Problem From Hell, “[t]he United States should not frame its policy options in terms of doing nothing or unilaterally sending in the marines.” The period of time pre-genocide, which may be characterized by internal unrest or civil war, is a key period of time for U.S. policymakers interested in preserving human life and a nation’s stability. If policymakers fear the development of genocide, they can take steps such as threatening legal consequences, enacting economic sanctions, or “calling on countries aligned with perpetrators to ask them to use their influence.” All of these and similar options are far less risky to the U.S. than a military intervention and can be readily applied in order to prevent violence escalating into genocide or in the case of a suspected, but unconfirmed, genocide.

Since the early 1900s the United States has been embroiled in Iranian affairs, something that would have great effects both in 1979 and now. The United States’ interest in Iran was originally spurred by the discovery of oil, but due to the Cold War U.S. interest in Iran grew even more for strategic reasons. To continue to exert their influence in Iran, the United States, through the CIA, installed shah Pahlavi as ruler. The shah was a cruel and strict dictator and was eventually overthrown and exiled. In place of the shah, an Islamic Republic came to power under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

As Kelly Anderson’s Foreign Policy Analyst, the following memo will address three areas of the United States’ foreign policy. The U.S. has gone through may transition when it comes to its foreign policy. The United States has been an isolationist, neutralist, and internationalist country from the year it was founded to now. The executive branch and the president apply their power to influence and change the nation’s foreign policy. There are specific departments within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) created to assist the president in his or her process. Political context and historical events have occurred to prove why intervening with another country’s issues does not benefit the national interest and why isolationism is a better system for this country. Hopefully, the memo will accomplish informing what the foreign policy is, was, and should be.

We as a country have preformed many interventions as part of our foreign policy. The majority of the time the President of the United States has the primary responsibility to shape foreign policy, alongside with the United States Congress. The Senate must approve all treaties. The State Department is directed to define and carry out that mission. (Per United States Constitution). The goals of our foreign policies are created and enforced by our State Department. There job is to define and direct our foreign policies. Foreign Policies include the following: Preserving the national security of the United States, Promoting world peace and secure global environment, Maintaining a balance of power among the nations, Working with allies to solve international problems, Promoting democratic values and human rights, Furthering the cooperation of foreign trade and global involvement in international trade

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

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,