X-Envelope-to: HISTORY@RUTVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"HISTORY@RUTVM1.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:02:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: U.S Military Intervention

This discussion has some very interesting points which have been brought up.
Currently I am begining my research on the topic (--a reminder for those of
you who have not caught the original query) of whether U.S Military
Intervention in the internal affairs of other countries is justified.
I am interested in discussing the "values" and "justification" of sending
U.S Military to other countries. First, what kind of value and criteria
should be used to judge the justification of U.S military intervention.
As Austin Kerr states:
>>whether or not U.S military intervention is "justified" depends on the values
of the person deciding on the "justification", not some "objective standard.
****
How can a value be created to judge the justification of intervention as to
whether it is just which could be defined as morrally or legally right--but
even defining just can resort to problems of frame of reference and how are
morals set in stone. A vast discussion could come out of this. Perhaps U.S
military intervention is just when it is for the good of the U.S and its
people. For example, two factions are fighting in a certain country for
control of the government. One faction would support the interests or be an
ally of the U.S if in power while the other would be in utter opposition.
Therefore the U.S deploys troops to the country for the good of the American
people by helping place a government in a nation which could be helpful to the
people and as a protection against harm. So maybe it is justified in a
governmental or principal way from the logic of the framers. Such a situation
has come about in history many times. Can we use the value of societal
good to justify military intervention?

Second, is there any way to create a general value which could help evaluate
whether U.S military intervention is justified? If each military situation
is different how can a generalization be made? Is it possible, when trying to
prove that intervention is justified, to admit that some U.S intervention was
unjustified (such as maybe the Vietnam War) but that in principle U.S military
intervention is justified? How can historical examples be used to create a
statement as to whether intervention is justified or unjustified?

Third, jumping to the subject of military intervention itself, is it possible
to include military aid as in money,resources, or support without deploying
troops as "intervention"?  Perhaps if we could include military aid in monetary
terms not just deployment of actual U.S forces, then we would be discussing
a s to whether a large amount of foreign aid (devoted to military in certain
countries) is justified. How do we define Military Intervention?

Fourth, Austin Kerr also discussed war as being "a symptom of the failure
of a nation's leadership;military intervention thus may be a sympton of a
failure of a foreign policy"--But how does this discuss the idea as to whether
U.S intervention is justified or not? If we granted Kerr that intervention is
a symptom of bad foreign policy how does that change whether intervention
is justified or not--just because war came about through sloppiness and
, how does it unjustify the use of U.S military force to intervene in a problem
between two nations or a civil war in one nation in order to try to stop
the violence and bring about the conditions for solving the problem--an end
to the war is the way to fix the original mistakes or amend the future course.
Therefore since U.S military intervention could be the only device
of stopping the war, then since war and bloodshed are deemed bad, intervention
to stop the war by winning the war, or stopping the sides from fighting is
justified.

Fifth, another way to approach the topic is the legitimization of the U.S as
being the policeman of foreign conflicts.I believe Greg Granger made a point
concerning this. I wonder how we can deem whether U.S intervention is
justified by examining whether the U.S has a legitimate right to intervene
in the internal affairs of other countries.

Sixth, one could argue saying that U.S military intervention is UNjustified
because it is not for humanitarian or a "just American cause" rather it is for
political motivation. Therefore since blood will be shed during military
intervention it is being shed for an unjust cause--the political motivations
of nations leaders.

Seventh, elaborating on the idea that U.S intervention is justified in order
to preserve democracy in the world--a volatile subject. If we can justify
democracy can we justify military intervention in other country's affairs in
order to presere THEIR democracy to keep OUR democracy and relations with THEIR
democracy stable. For example, some have justified WWI and WWII and other wars
by saying that it was to keep democracy alive in Europe and to stop tyranny.
Is democracy a justified cause?a justified value or criteria?
And of course, DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

SO in this letter I have basically touched on the points
of values, causes, justifications, legitimacies, etc.
I am interested in hearing the list's response.
Yoni
Yoni@BROWNCOG
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU