Tag Archives: military intervention

British Intervention In Syria

The British Parliament yesterday voted to approve airstrikes against ISIS. By a vote of 397 to 223, Prime Minister David Cameron won approval for his proposal to join the American-led coalition in striking Islamic State targets in Syria. Less than three hours later, four Royal Air Force Tornado strike fighters struck six targets in an ISIS-controlled oilfield in eastern Syria, the first British operation in the region. The British Defense Minister, Michael Fallon, confirmed that addition aircraft were being re-positioned to a British airbase in Cyprus to support and expand ongoing operations.

The vote to approve military action won a decisive majority,  with 315 of the 322 Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) voted to approve the action. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had attempted to rally his party in opposition to the movement, but was unable to do so, and 66 Labour MPs defected from their party to support the action, but 152 voted against it. President Obama quickly welcomed the decision.

What do you think? What do you think should be done to weaken the growing influence of the Islamic State? Will Western intervention be successful? Why?

Advertisements

Escalating Tensions in Ukraine

Sharp clashes in eastern Ukraine and the Crimea erupted over the weekend, as pro- and anti-Russian groups fought. The Russian parliament on Saturday unanimously authorized President Vladimir Putin to use Russian military forces to protect the country’s interests “until the normalization of the political situation in the country.” Late last week, unidentified soldiers in unmarked vehicles seized control of several key areas, including airports, in the Crimea. The region is also home to large populations of Russian citizens. Meanwhile President Barack Obama warned Russia against intervening in Ukraine’s political situation, and the United Nations Security Council held an “urgent” meeting on Saturday to address the crisis in the country.

Meanwhile, many observers are asking if Russia will invade Ukraine? And Ukrainian officials are warning Russia not to interfere.

What do you think? Will Russia intervene in Ukraine? If you were responsible for advising President Obama regarding the situation, how would you advise him to respond? What steps can the United States take? What steps should it take? Why?

Military Intervention in Libya: Moral Imperative or Foolish Misadventure?

The UN-approved and NATO-led military intervention in Libya offers a great case study on the differences between the realist an idealist worldviews, and how these fundamental ideological differences play out in the realm of foreign policy choices. Realists claim to deal with the world as it is rather than how one might wish it to be (the problem with the “idealists,” in their view). Given limited resources and the constraints of an anarchic world, realists contend, states must focus on the national interest and avoid the entanglements associated with moral crusades in foreign lands. Idealists (sometimes called liberals) on the other hand believe that a state’s foreign policy should be guided both by its interests and its values, and that certain moral outrages (e.g., severe human rights abuses) obligate the international community to intervene, with force if necessary. While realists are thus sometimes stereotyped as warmongers given their willingness to use coercive instruments unimpeded by moral reservations when the national interest demands it, idealists are in some cases the ones itching to “pull the trigger” on military intervention while realists caution them to stay out.

Such is the case with Libya, where the U.N. has authorized member states to use force to protect civilians and President Obama justified the intervention as “preventing a massacre.” Idealists have been quick to praise Obama’s decision, and Middle East expert Marc Lynch articulates this case well:

“…had the international community not acted when it did, thousands would have been slaughtered as the world watched. The effects of that decision would have been felt across the Middle East, where America would have been deemed to have abandoned the people struggling for freedom in the Arab world. And it would have quite simply been wrong. I have long been conflicted about the decision to intervene militarily, primarily because of the absence of a clearly defined end-game and the risk of escalation. I doubt that Obama’s speech will convince many of his critics. But I now think that he made the right call.”

On the other side are the realists, such as Stephen Walt, who contend that intervention does not serve a vital (American) national interest, and decry the instability and uncertainty that will result from casting aside the status quo in the hope of achieving something better: “…The US and NATO had better be thinking long and hard about what they are going to do if and when Qaddafi falls. As we are now seeing in some other contexts (e.g., Egypt), revolutionary change is usually chaotic, unpredictable, and violent, and it creates opportunities for various forms of mischief. These dangers loom especially large in Libya…So if the liberal interventionists who got us into this war want to make their decisions look good in retrospect, they had better have a plan to ensure that political transition in Libya goes a lot more smoothly than it did in Iraq.”

Realists are not a monolithic group, and if a realist believed that intervention in Libya served the national interest (perhaps through the security benefits of democracy promotion in the Middle East or the fall of Qaddafi’s regime) he or she would support it. However, most realists who have weighed in on Libya have viewed the intervention largely in humanitarian terms and have therefore opposed it as outside the scope of the national interest and potentially damaging to that interest given the lack of a clear end game, the seemingly ineffectual nature of much of the bombing, and the potential damage to U.S. and allied credibility.

Does the U.S. and the international community more broadly have an obligation to protect Libya’s civilians? Why have we taken action in Libya while seemingly turning a blind eye to human rights violations elsewhere? Is there an “end game” in sight or are we destined for a long and costly conflict, reminiscent of Iraq?