Introduction
The debate on whether military force should be used has been ongoing for decades, with some individuals supporting the idea, while other people oppose it. Historically, the use of military force was dependent on various factors, some of which apply to when and why military force can be used today. There are many benefits attributed to the use of military force, which is among the reasons why certain people support the use of military force. However, the use of military force also has its negative implications, which may be costly, thus causing the idea to be refuted by many. The use of military force is a complex matter that depends on various factors owing to both its negative and positive implications, thus should only be employed under certain circumstances. The aim of this essay, therefore, is to provide a description of what the use of military force entails including the circumstances under which it should be employed, as well as costs and benefits of using it.
A military force refers to an organization that is professional and has been legally authorized by a sovereign state to use any means possible, including lethal weapons to support and uphold the interests of that state (Fletcher & Ohlin, 2013). Owing to that function, the military force is typically divided into three branches namely, the Navy, Army, and Air force. Each branch is responsible for supporting and upholding the interests of the state it serves in its appointed areas, such as the Army doing so on land and the Air force in the skies. Therefore, as demonstrated, the use of military force entails using lethal or deadly weapons when called for, in an effort to support and uphold the interests of that state. For example, peace is typically the interest of any state, therefore in the event of violent and destructive riots or unruliness by citizens, the state can call upon the military to use force in an effort to quell the situation and bring peace. For instance, when a certain movement or group of individuals try to overthrow the government, military force may be used to subdue the group and ensure peace and order is restored.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The president is required to seek authorization of the Congress before ordering the use of military force in any event or circumstance. There are various instances or circumstances under which military force can be used, hence justifying the use or employment of military force. Among the circumstances under which military force is justified is when there are grounds for intervention, especially in the case of humanitarian intervention. In an article by Nardin (2013), humanitarian intervention refers to the response to a massive or significant violation of human rights, which is distinct from other forms of intervention such as intervention for the protection of one’s own nationals. This goes to show that one state cannot use military force in a foreign state solely to protect its nationals, as that is not considered grounds for humanitarian intervention. For example, in the event civil war breaks out in a country such as Somalia, where U.S. nationals are working or temporarily living or visiting, the U.S. cannot deploy its military there simply to protects the U.S. national in that country.
The justification of humanitarian intervention is only valid when it is a response to atrocities for which there are no alternative remedies (Nardin, 2013). This is in opposition to an attempt to free people from being oppressed by alien domination or tyranny that is home-grown. This goes to show that military force cannot be used in the case of national tyranny such as in the case of government tyranny as this would be deemed as undermining the sovereignty of that state. For instance, the U.S. could not have used military force during the genocide in Rwanda, where the Tutsi were killed since it was a civil war. However, there is an exception to humanitarian intervention, where the government of a state commits grave crimes against all or a portion of its own people (Nardin, 2013). In such a case, one state would be assisting the people being oppressed and not the state, which in such a case would be attributed to the ongoing aggression.
Overall, humanitarian intervention only justifies the use of military force when an aggressor state commits atrocities against its own people or people in another state, which only entails subduing the aggression and nothing further. This goes to show that if the U.S. chooses to engage in a humanitarian intervention using its military force, it can only subdue the aggressor state and not enslave or kill the aggressor(s) (Nardin, 2013). Therefore, one thing that the president should note is that the U.S. can only use military force in another state to rescue victims of atrocities, by ending killings and if possible remove the aggressor that called for the perpetration of the atrocities.
Another instance in which military force is justified is when there is an impending threat to a nation’s border, thus the justification being self-defense (Fletcher & Ohlin, 2013). If a country is on the verge of being invaded, then it can deploy its military force to help protect the borders and keep its citizens safe. The use of military force, in this case, is justified because the citizens of the nation on the verge of being attacked are likely to endure massive killings and atrocities. Therefore, by using military force, a country is able to preserve the safety and freedom of its citizens (Fletcher & Ohlin, 2013). For instance, during the Second World War, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States went to war in an effort to preserve its freedom. Military force is also justified in the event a powerful country or a group of powerful countries threaten to invade a less powerful country. An example is when Russia attacked the once Soviet Republic of Georgia in 2008, which allowed for an instance where military force could be used. Therefore, if ever any countries may want to invade the United States, then the country can defend itself using military force.
The use of military force has its associated costs as well as benefits. Among the benefits of using military force is that it prevents the occurrence of an impending attack or invasion. Owing to the fact that preservation of safety and freedom is cause for the use of military force, using it can help prevent invasion or attack to a state (Fletcher & Ohlin, 2013). Another benefit of using military force is the ability to help uphold human rights since in the event of crimes against humanity military force can be used for humanitarian intervention (Fletcher & Ohlin, 2013). Using military force also promotes a country’s ability to counter weapons of mass destruction. This is because members of the military are trained on how to detect and disarm the weapons, which in turn ensures peace not only within the country but for other neighboring states as well. Through technology, members of the military have been taught ways of detecting and dealing with high-tech weapons that could cause mass destruction. Therefore, in the event a country wants to use such weapons against another, the latter can deploy its military to subdue the impending attack, thus protecting its borders, as well as its people. Overall, the use of military force ensures the preservation of safety and freedom of any particular state, as well as upholding human rights by preventing atrocities from being committed against citizens either by their government, such as mass killings or genocides.
Some of the costs of using military force include the risk of drawing attack to one’s country especially in the event military force is used in another country for humanitarian intervention (Hensel, 2017). For instance, if the United States intervened in the crisis in Syria, to address the act of President Bashar al-Assad gassing his people, the Syrian government may have retaliated against the United States. This would have endangered the lives of innocent Americans despite the actions of the Syrian president being considered inhumane. Using military force is expensive owing to the equipment, ammunition, as well as provision required to successfully achieve the purpose of using it, to begin with, thus another cost of using military force (Hensel, 2017). Lastly, using military force may result not only in damage to property but also in injury and loss of lives for those caught in the crossfires including those serving in the military.
Conclusion
The military force as an organization that is professional and has been legally authorized by a sovereign state to use any means possible, is an asset to any nation. However, the use of military force is justified only in certain circumstances such use during a humanitarian intervention, in the event of an impending attack or invasion to a nation’s borders, as well as in the preservation of freedom and safety of a nation and its people. As a result, some of the benefits of using military force include preservation of safety and freedom and upholding human rights. The costs of using military force include loss of lives, injury, damage as well as creating susceptibility to attack and invasion. Therefore, in the event the president is considering using military force, some of the things to consider are the circumstances justifying the same, as well as whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
References
Fletcher, G. P., & Ohlin, J. D. (2013). Defending Humanity: When Force Is Justified and Why . Oxford University Press.
Hensel, H. M. (2017). The law of armed conflict: constraints on the contemporary use of military force . Routledge.
Nardin, T. (2013). From right to intervene to duty to protect: Michael Walzer on humanitarian intervention. European Journal of International Law , 24 (1), 67-82.
