Military Aid Do No Harm Analysis

The military has been instrumental in the protection and development of U.S interests around the world. From the Revolutionary War, which established the United States as a nation, through the World Wars, which set up the U.S as one of the world super powers, to its current war on terror, the military has helped and protected U.S. interests around the world. During all these wars American soldiers have proudly served their country. Because of these wars America is famous throughout the world for military power and its protection of freedom in the world. Today the U.S is an international symbol of wealth and power; it has the largest Gross Domestic Product in the world as well as the strongest military. Yet even America falls prey to a

Background - Historical Context: Some people believed that wars are worth the cost but is the

·  What conclusions did the study reach? Are the conclusions appropriate? Why or why not?

They also called for reform of the humanitarian response and development assistance, to enhance resilience and promote long-term solutions. Also, the US supports developmental assistance over military aid. ThinkAfricaPress states “Western governments look set to increase their military support for Sahelian and Saharan countries. But they do this based on incorrect assumptions, misguided objectives and questionable methods. At best, this trend will cost a lot of money and lives, and achieve little. At worst, it will lead to a worsening spiral of violence, producing the very outcomes Western powers fear.”

This kind of thinking is what lead to the massive military buildup. Document C portrays the

What was the background for the research study? That is, what previous knowledge did the author describe as a foundation for the study in the “review of related literature”?

From Document 5, Truman also says, “I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is

Document 2 also states that the military has expanded its role into areas that were previously civilian areas. These include counter-terrorism, drug trafficking enforcement, natural disaster aid, immigration control, and policing. This shows that the US is militaristic because the military is constantly expanding; not only by means of budget and power, but also responsibility. This is also a negative example of US militarism because civilian control over the military is important. The American democracy was built around this

One of the books most obvious arguments is that we spend billions on the wrong aid projects while overlooking the almost costless and far more helpful ones. Sears undermines a Wisconsin dairyman’s self-started project to raise nutrition levels in the Sarkhan country­side, thwarts a band of anti-Communist irregulars formed by a militant Massachusetts priest, and orchestrates the dismissal of his more capable successor, who fails to convince Washington of an impending coup. He does this all because these efforts get in the way of his big, self-serving plans that do not benefit

The American soldiers fighting in foreign lands create a high cost of war. The multiple factors related to the high cost of maintaining America’s vast military bases in foreign lands is not sustainable, but the human cost of families coping with injuries suffered in war by home coming vets from foreign wars is not acceptable either. The foreign and political sides are the cost of maintaining a large military presence here and abroad is not feasible. Whereas, the concerns of war over domestic issues must be a balance between military spending and infrastructure was in America’s best interest. The main focus on key issues like causalities, political, foreign, and lobbyist and much more topics

After unraveling of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, fears of war breaking out between the major powers of the United States and the Soviet Union were greatly reduced. Numerous commentaries, reports, and studies arose out of the question of what to do with the excess U.S. forces, and how to reshape them for a new era (Snider & Carlton-Carew, 1996). Since the birth of the United States, the military has been an important part of the United States. The US military has been a fundamental part of foreign policy, including fostering democracy, establishing rule of law, and assisting with economic development in territories allied with the U.S. (Ludema, 2007).

If the money used for going to war was used on things that are beneficial to our own people we would still be able to maintain what we need through trade with those who are willing. By using this money on our own country we could spend it on things that are actually necessary, like college and social security. According to the text, “American citizens and troops would be safer if the US government put all of its focus on its own security, rather than foreign affairs.” (Source #3) Despite the last point being relevant in some situations, it is more important that we help those who are not capable of getting the help they deserve in the place they used to know as

$1.754 trillion - that is the current estimated amount the United States has spent on defense-related costs since 2001 (Koshgarian, L., et al., 2015). While the United States spends more on its military than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the U.K., India, France, and Japan combined (Peterson, P., 2016), it has one of the highest rates of poverty among developed countries and lags behind in many social and economic areas. In what other ways can that money benefit the people it is used to protect? Since U.S. military intervention abroad is a controversial topic in of itself, the high cost to

In Document B, it states that less people died in US casualties than Japanese casualties. It shows US soldiers best by how well trained they are. Although, it is quite unfair since Japan have lesser soldiers than America. Furthermore, in Document F is another example of how the US soldiers are just brilliant and well trained. It shows man’s best, but it also shows man’s worst by killing thousands of people.

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