Buy custom Obama?s New War essay paper cheap
The Arab uprising has resulted to both positive and negative impact on the economies of the affected countries. Through the demonstrations, they have been able to topple the past regime of corrupt and dictator leaders and elect their leader of choice. The uprising has created awareness of bad leadership across the globe forcing the western countries to intervene and call for the rights and freedom of the innocent citizens. The killing of innocent people in Libya has forced the international council (United Nation Security Council) to intervene by sending its forces to protect the citizens from further killings. It has also ordered for a no flying zone to the nation so as to monitor the forces that are loyal to Gaddafi (Retrieved: Middle East unrest, 2011). The situations have paralyzed the entire economies of the involved countries as they are unable to carry out their daily economic activities that boost the economy. The tourism sector and transport sectors have been adversely affected by the demonstrators since tourists cannot visit countries undergoing political instabilities.
The unrest state in the Middle East countries like Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and others has brought about much concern to the entire globe. The revolution began in Tunisia that was being led by former President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali who had ruled the country with an iron hand. With Tunisia being a focal point, it led to spread of the calls for democracy in other Arab nations across the Middle East. The long oppress imposed on the people over a long time has given them the urge to fight for their rights and freedom despite the outcome. Most of the rebels have formed organizations that are determined to fight until their needs are addressed fully by their leaders whom they elect. The paper highlights the impacts of the intervention of the USA and NATO through the United Nations Security Council Resolution of 1973. The resolution calls for all the council members to take all necessary means of actions including military force for protection of civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack by forces loyal to Libyan leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi (Dalton, 2011).
This study draws a distinction between intervention that is oriented at providing relief and peacekeeping and intervention that involves a multilateral coalition engaging in military action. The former type of intervention refers to non-military involvement that includes the deliverance of food and medical aid and the deployment of neutral peacekeepers among other things. Military intervention on the other hand refers expressly to instances where a third party intervener inserts itself into combat thereby becoming a belligerent within a conflict and losing any former semblance of neutrality. As such, the study here draws a distinction between peacekeeping and peace implementation(Cheldelin, Druckman and Fast, 2008).
The call for democracy by the US America to other world nations is a factor that has led to the distrust from other countries especially from the Middle East who have over time been associated with terrorism activities. The call for democracy has made many ant-democracy groups to express different views on the Americans championing of Democracy that has eventually resulted on terrorist’s attacks on the American people across the globe. The American intelligence community (I. C) has been rewarded with the duty of coordinating the intelligence system that carries out the ant-terrorism program in America. The structure is relays much on the legitimacy, collaboration, intelligence service dexterity and issuance of command & control of the security agencies (Dismore, 2008).
The Dictatorial rule by leaders in the countries has been a major cause of the uprisings as the natives have reached a state of no return with the way of running the political arena. These have led to the rise of ant-imperialism struggle, communist hunt and continuous protesting against the unfair leadership. The citizens have been denied their freedoms on all the political matters of their country. The ever deteriorating living standards among the people and un-equal distribution of resources among the population as forced them to rise against their governance. Rulers like, Ali-Ben, Mubarak among others did not fully meet the expectations of the citizen as they were seen as blocks to development and reforms. The leaders have been in power for long periods (decades) yet they are not willing to live the offices despite calls from the people i.e. Gaddafi of Libya and the Syria president (Retrieved: Middle East unrest, 2011). The power of the youth through mass protests in the streets demanding for accountability by the executives has led to fall of regimes of Ben Ali and Mubarak.
The political domination and restriction on fundamental freedoms among the people as they view as if power is being taken away from them as they are denied freedom of expressing their views, holding peaceful protests, restricting media from highlighting crucial issues in the society and manipulating the election to favour the presidents allies. Incidences of violence to the public by the police and the abuse of public offices with those in authority are among the issues that had become a routine practice forcing people to react against them. The mismanagement of funds through corruption cases by those in the authority focus on their personal gains using the country’s resources without considering the public’s interests. The funds embezzled could be used in carrying out government expenditure, development of infrastructure, setting up of social amenities and creation of new industries and factories that could provide employment opportunities to the youth.
Terrorism has been one of the most dangerous organized crime activity combating different nations across the world. To be able to cub terrorism activities there is need to formulate counter terrorism policies to boost operations of the agencies dealing with terrorism activities. In U.S.A different agencies such as: CIA, FBI and State department deal with terrorism activities. The counter terrorism operations involve the use of different methods and strategies by either the military or the government selected individuals to do way with terrorism (Government Printing Office, 2008).
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is one of the leading independent agencies owned by the US government in charge of the task of providing national security intelligence to the selected US policymakers. Its specific functions include:
- Advising the National Security council of the US on subjects involving matters about intelligence activities of specific departments in the government about national security.
- Evaluating and coordinating operations to guard national security and provide needed data about intelligence to different government branches.
- Organize and perform counterintelligence tasks beyond borders of the United States and it never will perform or assume any internal security functions.
- Performs special operations requested by the President unless the president chooses another agency over it according to what the state needs to achieve.
- Maintains technical devices and systems and develops them after enough research through contracts for them to perform their special and authorized functions.
- Gives both technical and administrative assistance inside and outside the United States needed so as help it perform its functions, such as essential cover and prior arrangements (Lewis & Hocking, 2007).
Theoretical debate in political science about what kind of conditions are conducive to an escalation of humanitarian to military intervention is limited to a level. Liberal perspectives of intervention commonly see it as motivated by altruistic humanitarian intentions while realist perspectives tend to view interventions, even those of a humanitarian nature, through the prism of self-interest. On a broad level, the perspectives regarding why military intervention occurs can be grouped into three categories or condition sets: those that see intervention as motivted by severity of conditions on the ground, those that see it as the product of domestic political influences and those that see it as a product of geopolitical considerations.
An escalation in the level of intervention is likely due to geopolitical considerations and certain domestic political influences. This is not to deny that the severity of a conflict is not pertinent in the choice to intervene. According to the principles of the UN Charter, it seems unlikely that a multilateral coalition would violate the sovereignty of another state by interfering in its domestic affairs without a serious humanitarian impetus. An elevated level of violence and volatility in a nation is necessary for prompting a violation of a state’s sovereignty. A mixture of domestic political influences and geopolitical influences are likely the primary conditions behind the escalation of humanitarian intervention to military intervention.
Severity of Conditions on the Ground
Severity simply refers to the escalation of multilateral action as flowing from humanitarian exigencies. Many academicians argue that in the event of increased suffering, there is a moral imperative for major powers and intergovernmental organizations to use force in order to alleviate such a crisis. It is automatic that the increasing intensity of a conflict could likely deter a nation from applying military force. The application might force an intervening actor to spend more resources and manpower than it would want the conduct of intervening nations that this increased force investment is seen as undesirable as no nation wants to potentially be mired in a quagmire by investing too heavily in an intrastate conflict.
Domestic Political Influences
This theory puts across the intervention of states. It argues that state interests and domestic constraints within an intervening nation impact intervention. It is extracted from the model of multilateral intervention that has emerged over the last two decades. Although multilateral intervention is done under the auspices of an international organization and supported by a coalition of many participating states, it is argued that one nation tends to be more involved than others in directing military action given the greater resources it can devote to such an effort. Many scholars spot the US as a key party. The theory has three categories namely: leadership preferences, public opinion and self-interest (Dalton, 2011).
The perceptive indicates the influence of the international system on foreign involvement in intrastate conflict. The norms and attitudes toward military intervention in the international system at a given time play a role in determining its likelihood. The combination of international support and norms favours the intervention in combination with domestic support thus creating the conditions for military intervention in an intrastate conflict (Regan, 1998). The current multilateral intervention is viewed as motivated by the same wider strategic concerns as intervention had been during the Cold War. The utility of interfering in an intrastate conflict based on how it can improve their standing, how it can expand their influence, and how feasible it is given the existence of other major powers who might take action to block or subvert such intervention. The theory also states that the intervention focuses on the Conflict Spill over probability. It may intervene in a war if it feels that the growing intensity of the conflict threatens to spread across state boundaries intervention as prompted by instances where a civil war is so pervasive and malignant that its effects could spread to neighbouring nations (Dismore, 2008). Civil wars could prompt an influx of refugees, deteriorate regional economic conditions, or even lead to violence in surrounding territories.
Past interventions (Bosnia, Somalia)
The US and NATO’s previous intervention in Somalia showed signs of concerns as about 100,000 lives were saved from rebels thus terming the mission as not really an abject failure. Intervention in the Somali Civil War in 1992 was the first acclaimed instance of multilateral humanitarian intervention when U.S. and international peacekeepers under several UN sanctioned missions entered Somalia to stabilize a state that had grown increasingly fragmented since the overthrow of long time dictator Siad Barre (Regan, 1998). However, the mismanagement of the same should be applied in Bosnia peacemakers and also other parts of the world. Intervention in the Bosnian Civil War was a far more sustained endeavour in which after three years of unsuccessful peacekeeping efforts by the UN, a U.S. led NATO bombing campaign in 1995 against the Bosnian Serbs brought about a successful end to the war forcing the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiation table. In addition to that, there is no humanitarian body, peace intervention or military that can maintain neutral or even survive in a nation that is considered as a failed state. Thus building a nation and the process of re-building the civil institutions of a state which are basic in nature is needed in putting in place a body that will self sustain anarchy out of politics. Therefore in the coming years, the United Nations and countries such as America and other intervening bodies and nations should see the need of declaring a state of bankrupt and aim at fostering reconciliation in addition to restoring civic orders in these nations.
On the other hand, should play the role of a precedent in any international war intervention in nations that are torn by war. In addition peace keeping nations and countries such as United States should learn from Somali situation (Zartman, 2007). . This is because a considerate amount of lessons can be drawn from patent falsehood that was based on the events of the wars and the intervention process. Consequently, some governments and even individuals have given a different version of what actually took place in Somalia with an aim of protecting both their personal and political interest in addition to their reputation.
Current non-interventions (Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, and others)
Currently, United States, France and even Britain have started a process which will result into Muammar being thrown out of the government. Muammar is considered as a dictator and a tyrant who has taken and dominated the political arena of Libya for decades.
When the western nations decided to attack Libya, they argued that Muammar has decided to kill people and citizens in his country (Dalton, 2011). This he did by not only repelling the measures put in place but also taking counter measures that aimed at putting an end to uprising that were legitimate, revolutions and even rebellion groups that were against his repression, dictatorship and tyranny against Libya people.
However, the fact is that the whole world watched as Libya was being invade and occupied by western nations led by France with an aim of having access to its crude oil. This is similar to the attacks that took place in Iraq when United States attacked it with an aim of destroying mass destruction weapons. It has been argued that the reason for invasion was just a camouflage as the nation’s main agenda was to invade and occupy Libya. Therefore, Libya is being attacked with an aim invading and occupying it when its government changes under the camouflage of providing protection for the people of Libya. But this is a pretence that is not true. The actions will result into more and more conflicts in future and enmity between Libya and western nations.
Furthermore, Libya at the moment is at a crucial stage of experiencing a change in regime that is steered by the western nations under the pretence of assisting people of Libya. Western nations including United States, France and Britain have not only loathed Muammar but also hated him for live. This is because Muammar has been against imperialism, colonialism and apartheid just from his early days in college and as a youth (Retrieved: Middle East unrest, 2011).
The agreement that Muammar had assigned with European nations such as Italy indicated elements of his inconsistence and contradictions in what he actually believed in. according to the agreement, Libya had the responsibility of acting as a gatekeeper whereby it had to hinder Africans from entering European nations b y ensuring that it is not used as a point of entry. In addition to that, Muammar inconsistence was and has been illustrated when he gave a suggestion in a public meeting that there is need to split Nigeria into parts so as to establish distinct nations based on culture, region, linguistics and even ethnicity lines. Thus, it can be argued that Muammar is not for the principle of unity.
However despite the dictatorship nature of Gaddafi, the actions of western nations only symbolize double standards taken by them and their hypocritical nature. For example the western nations watched as 40 people who were protesting peaceful in Yemen were brutally murdered by the militia and Yemen government.
Moreover, the hypocrisies portrayed by western nations are illustrated by massacre in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Tunisia, Bahrain and even Egypt. In the continent of Africa, there are elements of reprisals and rebellions against rebels. However, Somali stands out to be the worst amongst them all. Somali which is an anarchic nation is not only a failed state but a disintegrated one without any government which is stable. A situation which it has experience since 1991. Nonetheless, the western nations have failed to intervene in order to save the lives of citizens and civilians who are so innocent. But the case could be different if Somali was rich in crude oil like Libya. Since 1991; Somalia has attracted the western nations’ attention. This is because the pirates had invaded the Somalis waters. In addition to that, the pirates in the Indian Ocean hinder western merchandizing and commerce. However, the nations have failed to intervene in the humanitarian crises in Somali land.
Furthermore, in 1994 in the massacre that took place in Rwanda a great number of people lost their lives. It has been argued that the conflict was caused ethnic cleansing and hatred. This led to the genocide which resulted into chasm and schism between tutsi and hutu. However despite this the western nation did nothing even though the united nation troops were present during the genocide. Genocide later took place in Sudan whereby millions of people died on the basis of their origin, religion and race. The government of basher located in Khartoum was criticized but the western nations or the United Nations. However, even though the international criminal court ended up indicating both government of Khartoum and basher while the oil continued to flow freely (Lewis & Hocking, 2007).
On the other hand, Libya has been continuously attacked while the western nations have considered overthrowing Gaddafi’s government in addition to changing the existing regime while ignoring the case of Bashir. A number of reports from Congo have indicated that civilians were abused, raped or massacred. This resulted into dislocations but the western nations failed to intervene in any manner.
Moreover countries such as Sierra Leone and Libya have also experienced dislocations, incidents of violence and conflicts whereby innocent civilians suffered greatly. However for ECOWAS countries led by Nigeria, Nigeria was forced to spend billions in terms of dollars for the purpose of stability and peace keeping. Neither western nations nor the United Nations tried to intervene in any way. However, the inconsistencies and the predictions presented by the western governments are indicators that these nations are not actually interested in intervening in the conflict situations.
Data from Bricmont
As per the data from Bricmont, the Assange and the wiki leaks played the role of enlightening people how the government of America participated in making the government of Yemen to cheat its citizens. This resulted into millions of people losing their lives as American troops continued with their operations in Yemen (Pickering, McCulloch & Wright-Neville, 2008). Thus, it can be argued that Yemen is a nation that is ready to give in to western nation demands and serve their interests.
Moreover, according to Bricmont data, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Algeria and Tunisia also had experienced protests and peaceful demonstrations. The term peaceful demonstrations have been used as a catchphrase in these protests which started in Tunisia. Then other nations such as Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt among other followed in later years. Peacefulness have been used as an example in the tides of revolutions, protests demanding for human rights, demand for the rule of law and democracy and the need to put to an end political repressions.
The American initiative of participating actively in the Libyan war has faced many challenges as many people were against the US invasion based on many reasons well known to them. The intervention had shortages of the congressional approval thus terming the exercise illegal. Initially the war intervention seemed the best option but over the time it has turned out to be the opposite. The actual fall of Gaddafi should not be given much consideration which America and the UNSC has pointed out which is not a genuine reason for going into war. The previous evidence from Iraq and other countries like Somalia shows that “Victory” is not a key focus on war but the after war activities which include insurgency and civil wars among the people.
In the Libyan scenario, the rebels have taken control of most parts of the country formerly under Gaddafi regime. The NATO support to the rebels has guaranteed them the mandate of invading most areas of the country (Zartman, 2007). The previous experience and study on the ant-sanctions about movement and the humanitarian involvement on war affected areas is not a subject worth either support or not. The US support in Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries have not bared fruits after the post-cold war era. This calls for an immediate change in our theoretical framework of approaching conflicts among nations. We need to move away from the liberal system of administration and impress change which will aid us in solving both local and international conflicts.
According to the US and UNSC the intervention seemed to have much benefits as it was aimed at protecting the innocent citizens but in the long run it has given rise to many negative issues. It is also alleged that ant-Gaddafi (Rebel Army) are being commanded by an agent from the CIA who are promoting the Western regime. The pro-Western are associated with Neo-liberalism as they work basing on US and UNSC instructions. UNSC and US aim of impressing revolutionary is far from being attained as the strategies put in place by the council seems to support tenuous control on the rebels. The rebels over time have been seen assassinating innocent souls for their military gain across the region. The call for stable and cooperative regime by the NATO and US has given rise to instability and separation on the affected members. Generally, the Bourgeois foreign-policy is the major concerns of the international community as they have not yielded any fruits since its enactment. Most of the Western based policies are affected by the fractiousness and disorganization thus preventing the attainment of revolutionary.
The fact that the US has the moral obligation of supporting all the innocent people searching for freedom from oppression and hoping for a self-governance to the future generation does not guarantee decision on all conflicts matters. The commander-in-Chief who is the president of US has no mandate of waging offensive war on any country that has shown no signs of security threat the US. However, it is unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi and his army to launch an attack on his own subjects (Pilger, 2011). The Gaddafi’s act calls upon immediate international intervention for the safety of the Libyan people. The United States and NATO should mainly concentrate on new ways of restoring civic order and foster the reconciliation among the Libyan people instead of supporting the Rebels.
Buy custom Obama?s New War essay paper cheap
|← Political Science Journals||Federalists →|
- Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence
- Political Science Journals
- Political Parties