Why Is Military Force Justified?

Can a nation justify using military force? A very respected English leader Winston Churchill once told the people of England that, “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be we shall fight on the beaches we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” In contraction, John F. Kennedy uttered, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” Over the course of history, millions of people were murdered for the sake of land, resources, and money. In comparison, war been fought to save lives and for self-defense. In some cases, war can be justified.

Military - The power to direct and formulate military actions and strategies in times of war and peace.

Militarism is where a nation should build and maintain a strong military and use it whenever that nation felt like it. Militarism is significant because it started a thing called “The Arms Race” which was a competition were enemy countries would try beat each other in the number of weaponry they had, “Militarism, combined with new weapons, emerging technologies and developments

A person is justified in the use of deadly force when that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 7-1). A person is justified in the use of deadly force when that person reasonably believes that such force will prevent death or great bodily harm. People v. S.M.

There are three solutions that need to be introduced in order to correct the problems caused by protest riots. If police officers change their approach when dealing with protests, there is a smaller chance that a protest will escalate into a riot. Also if there are hidden cameras implanted around the community and inside policer officer uniforms more people will be caught for their actions.If rioters embrace a more peaceful approach toward social injustices, they will be higher regarded by the general public.

If unlawful acts are occurring by another group trying to disrupt the peaceful assembly, I believe that the police would have no choice in the matter of disbanding both groups in order to restore the general order and provide the safety of the general public. There would not be a way of knowing who were the original peaceable protestors and the opposing group. If police allowed for the assembly to continue by only arresting the individuals committing unlawful acts there is the possibility that the opposing group would hide in the crowd until police are not in the area to observe and then commit those unlawful acts to avoid arrest.

However this responsibility must be exercised only when the situation and U.S. capabilities enable a successful military intervention. Military action should be a measure of last resort and the standards for its use should be high. Those standards include multilateral action, logistical feasibility, domestic public support, and an actionable post-genocide plan for stability.

Another thing why are we rioting? What good is it doing for our country? Rioting is doing no good for our country it is actually tearing it apart.Besides why

What is excessive force? Excessive force is when the force exceeds the required amount to deescalate a situation or to safeguard themselves or others from any hurt, harm or danger from an individual. United States constitutional rights are to be free from excessive force found under reasonable search and seizure conditions in the Fourth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment.

This is a prime example of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri August, 9th 2014. “The governor called in the National Guard to Tear gas the protesters.” Caught in the process many innocent citizens were tear gassed. “Among those hit with tear gas Sunday was an 8-year-old boy.” As citizens we should be able to express the constitutional right to protest and freedom of speech without being terrorized and shot at.

America has changed immensely since WWI. Our policies of isolationism and distance from other countries have evolved into open involvement, large trade agreements, and a booming economy. However, as we have become more involved as a nation, we have used our military less sparingly. The American military is used to garrison other countries, allied and warzone. Our military is being used to oversee diplomatic meetings that we have no national or economic ties too. This leads to the question of when American military involvement or force is justified when America is not at war. The logical answer is that American military force is only justified through self-defense as well as humanitarian intervention.

When people protest peacefully they will not have problems with police, “Police, who were nearby in large numbers, stayed back and let the marchers go.” (Almasy & Yan, 2014)

The three main tactics used to combat civil wars and instill peace in an area are peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and counterinsurgency. The first tactic I will address is peacekeeping. Once the two parties of a conflict have agreed to a truce, peacekeepers will come in to guarantee the implementation of the truce and try to maintain peace. The duty of peacekeepers is “not only [to] monitoring troops, but also with human rights monitoring, protecting and delivering humanitarian aid, demobilizing and retraining troops, reforming police forces, protecting civilians, reforming legal systems, assisting in economic reconstruction, and sometimes administering the entire state until a new government can take over. In other words, after civil wars, peacekeepers are often charged not only with military monitoring duties, but with reforming the essential institutions of the state” (Peacekeeping, Peace Enforcement, and UN Reform Lise Morjé Howard, P 1-2). There are three ways that peacekeepers are able to use their power in order to succeed. These three ways include coercion, inducement, and persuasion. Coercion involves a display of power, like swagger, to wield off attacks. Troops use swagger in several scenarios. One of the most common times the use of swagger will occur is during policing, where troops will patrol the area. Since one of the main doctrines of peacekeeping involves not using force, this type of coercion has been deemed useful. Even though the majority of the time

If violence breaks out at any time during a protest, the government should exercise the right to stop the protest

Military coercion strategy has long since existed as a means to enforce a desired set of outcomes, behaviours, or policies. The definition of coercion covers a lot of theoretical ground, including both compellence and deterrence. The successes and failures of military coercion can be seen through the mechanisms of, Destruction, Punishment, and Denial that theorists have argued are part of the methods of coercion. The effectiveness of military coercion may be linked to the credibility, capability and communication of a threat. These factors that determine what military coercion is are highlighted through historical examples, including the Cuban Missile Crises, nuclear warfare, counterinsurgency and the Kosovo air campaign.