Pros And Cons Of Military Interventionism

To intervene or not intervene will always be a subject of intense debate all around the world due to the fact that interventionism has shaped world politics since the beginning of known history. Interventionism encompasses the justification of a nation or sovereign state to invade, attack, support militarily, support economically, politically, or aiding a sovereign state for any reason. In any case, all arguments comes down to two perspectives: (A) there is no reason for intervention, (B) intervention is only acceptable under certain circumstances. In addition if historical evidence shows us one thing it is that intervention has always been a means to an end. One example of this is America’s annual 3 billion dollar grant to Israel from 1985

On March 11, 2011 a Syrian uprising begun in order to establish a pro-democracy government and to abolish Bashar Al-Assad’s authoritarian practices. This led to a proxy war between world powers such as Russia and America where the United States provided weapons and training to Syrian rebels and Russia provided economic and military support to Al-Assad. As the conflict evolved religious extremism evolved to an unprecedented level; terrorist groups splintered off from the rebels and perpetrated attacks around the world such as the Taliban’s attacks on the World Trade Centers in 2001. According to William Blum, the United States and other nations “involvement in international situations [led to] an increase in terrorist attacks” around the world due to its foreign policy in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. The fact that William Blum is a historian, and critic of United States foreign policy proves he is a somewhat credible source but it might be a bit skewed due to the fact that he is very critical of American foreign policy so he might have an inclination to show the policy in a negative point of

It should be noted that intervention usually ends up with militaristic campaigns but it is stressed that militaristic actions should be the last resort; the international community should try to place sanctions on the sovereign state like trade embargos and other diplomatic options as a first response. Part of this diplomatic approach is “conflict prevention refers to a set of policies adopted at an early stage of a conflict, prior to violent escalation or after ceasefire/settlement has been negotiated to prevent resumption of violence. Conflict prevention aims at channeling conflict into non-violent behavior by providing incentives for peaceful accommodation and/or raising the costs of violent escalation for conflict parties.” In addition to diplomatic actions can allow for “fact finding missions” allowing the international community to become aware of exactly what is happening and why so the UN can come up with a plan to rectify the situation.4 This comes from the perspective of “A political scientist” specializing in the management of contemporary security challenges, “especially in the