Military intervention
Military intervention is almost always used solely as a last resort when diplomacy fails and military intervention can be justified. Not all acts of military intervention occur between massive nations and nations that cannot defend themselves.
Although sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states are fundamental principles of the international system, intervention by external powers in the affairs of other states occur frequently during civil wars. Many civil wars have prompted diplomatic, economic or military interventions by foreign powers.
Military action, in any context, should not be taken lightly. But neither should standing by and proposing measures that have, like in Syria, so far failed to work. Opponents of intervention need to explain how staying the current course—hoping that diplomacy might work when it has not for nearly a year—is likely to resolve an increasingly deadly civil war.
There was a bit of wishful thinking going on that Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, might somehow be persuaded to stop the killing and negotiate in good faith with an opposition that, for its part, wants nothing less than to see him dead. A diplomatic solution would obviously be preferable—if it were possible. A military coup against Mr Assad is a godsend.
Because protests and unrest continued, the Syrian government began launching major military operations to suppress resistance. On 25 April, Daraa, which had become a focal point of the uprising, was one of the first cities to be besieged by the Syrian. About 600 people were arrested during the crackdown. By 5 May, most of the protests had been suppressed, and the military began pulling out of Daraa. However, some troops remained to keep the situation under control.
Another example could be the the First Gulf Was which was a military intervention to prevent then Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from invading oil rich countries such as Kuwait to build a middle eastern empire that could control
Although sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states are fundamental principles of the international system, intervention by external powers in the affairs of other states occur frequently during civil wars. Many civil wars have prompted diplomatic, economic or military interventions by foreign powers.
Military action, in any context, should not be taken lightly. But neither should standing by and proposing measures that have, like in Syria, so far failed to work. Opponents of intervention need to explain how staying the current course—hoping that diplomacy might work when it has not for nearly a year—is likely to resolve an increasingly deadly civil war.
There was a bit of wishful thinking going on that Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, might somehow be persuaded to stop the killing and negotiate in good faith with an opposition that, for its part, wants nothing less than to see him dead. A diplomatic solution would obviously be preferable—if it were possible. A military coup against Mr Assad is a godsend.
Because protests and unrest continued, the Syrian government began launching major military operations to suppress resistance. On 25 April, Daraa, which had become a focal point of the uprising, was one of the first cities to be besieged by the Syrian. About 600 people were arrested during the crackdown. By 5 May, most of the protests had been suppressed, and the military began pulling out of Daraa. However, some troops remained to keep the situation under control.
Another example could be the the First Gulf Was which was a military intervention to prevent then Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from invading oil rich countries such as Kuwait to build a middle eastern empire that could control