Which Criteria Should the President Use to Decide on Armed Intervention?

Which Criteria Should the President Use to Decide on Armed Intervention?
Janet L. Johnson
LIB: 320
Global Socioeconomic Perspectives
Errol G. Palmer, Ph.D.
May 12, 2008







Abstract
After economic and military capabilities are assessed, our president must look at the more abstract and fickle criteria of domestic political support. There are at least five criteria which tend to influence the availability of domestic political support and support by the American public. These are separately classified as sovereignty, national interest, human rights, expected net effect on the human condition, and the degree of multilateralism. (Viotti & Kauppi, 2009) I will look at these criteria and how they conflict with each other. I will look at what criteria I think are most important if I had to make these decisions.


Which Criteria Should the President Use to Decide on Armed Intervention?
When all diplomacy has been exhausted, when the threat is real, when American lives are in real danger, armed intervention might occur. Our position as a military force, armed to the teeth, generally prevents other states from taking action which might mean war with the United States of America or with her allies. We are a rich country with financial resources, and a generally stable economy. Our military has been built up to over 600,000 troops on active duty (Casey, 2008)and has the capacity to enlarge itself using the military draft. Domestic political support and support of the American public are the real determining factors as to whether a president should consider armed intervention. The separately classified criteria are sovereignty, national interest, human rights, expected net effects on the human condition, and the degree of multilateralism. Looking at them together as separate influences and as conflicting issues, a president must either move with the support of the country or risk not getting the moral, financial, and actual support for his war.

Sovereignty has in times past been a shield used to protect a state from possible armed conflict. Under international law and normal customs, states are prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs unless the legitimate government requests aid. The only exception would be if self defense to an aggressive act by that state. The population of the United States holds its sovereignty as infinite and unquestionable. This attitude might imply a stronger respect for foreign sovereignty than is even guaranteed by the United Nations.

National interest is another criteria. It is often stated that the wars we engage in are because of “oil” rather than some other stated reason. These issues of National Interest are not as simple as this. It is difficult to clearly define when and what might be declared of national interest, but in each particular case there is this ambiguous factor.

Human Rights are largely becoming the stated underlying reason for military use. When our country was formed it was to protect our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After 220 years of these guaranteed rights, the population of the United States has moved toward recognizing that all humans have these rights. The United Nations has openly declared, in September 1999 that states bent on criminal behavior should " know that frontiers are not an absolute defense, that massive and systematic violations of human rights, wherever they may take place, should not be allowed to stand." (Haass, 2003)

Expected Net Effect on the Human Condition must be considered. Even if the numbers can’t be known, that there will be a devastating effect on human life, private property, and long term effects on the surviving solders and civilians after an armed conflict is well established. This must be respected and taken into account when deciding on whether or not to use armed intervention.

The last consideration which would influence popular opinion and political support is multilateralism. Getting support from our allies is of greater importance than ever. While our military strength may be so mighty that we would be unchallenged if we moved without the support of the world, we are vulnerable in the economic sense. The “sticks” which could be applied by our trading partners might upend our economy.

Discussion
Assuming that the financial and military arguments are sound that all diplomacy has been exhausted, and that the threat is real, the criteria we are debating must be considered, but how they are viewed by the American public can be manipulated. While Americans respect the sovereignty of a foreign government, placing doubt as to the legitimacy is a commonly used practice. Human rights violations can be manufactured, or old already addressed instances can be dragged out as if new. The expected net effect can be mineralized and whatever issue is in our national interest can be built up. What cannot be manufactured is our degree of multilateralism.
How much support other countries are offering would be the criteria that I would use to decide. The American values that we bring to every discussion are simply basic human values. They are shared by most of our allies. If we are fully prepared to invade a foreign state, the ‘rightness’ of it should be obvious to any who share our value and have access to our information.
This multilateralism is also a good gage as to how much manipulation of facts has occurred in the issues mentioned above. The degree of abuses of human rights might be played about on our news channels. We can generally assume that the news organizations have done their function as the invisible fourth branch of government, checking and balancing the power of the sitting president. In this internet age, we have access to the other press of the world.
Multilateralism is also important when looking at the cost of the war in “human condition”. If our allies are fighting alongside us, the financial cost will be shared. The experience of their militaries are available to the troops. The new technologies can be shared. Channels open for movement of supplies and of troops. Overall, the war will be shortened and the burden shared.


Conclusion
In deciding on whether or not to use armed intervention, the criteria described above are all useful. The one that I would use to make final decisions are the criteria of Multilateralism or support from the world at large. If we enjoy the support of our allies, we can form clear goals and exit in a way that is agreed upon by all players.














References
Haass, R., (February 7, 2003), Armed intervention: When nations forfeit their sovereign privileges, International Herald Tribune online, retrieved at http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/02/07/edhaass.php
On May 12, 2008
Podur, J, (2006), Kofi Annan’s Haiti, New Left Review 37, January - February 2006, retrieved on May 12, 2008 http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2604
Viotti, P.R. & Kauppi, M.V. (2009), International relations and world politics, fourth edition, Pearson prentice hall, New Jersey
Wheeler, N. (2001), Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2001, retrieved at www.mjil.law.unimelb.edu.au/issues/archive/2001(2)/10Wheeler.pdf