Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
Unfortunately, the availability of combat power encourages people to try to solve a problem by using it.
Doctrinal training for soldiers emphasizes the aggressive, warrior image that is not normally compatible with peacekeeping. and, finally, the United States soldier is always regarded as primarily under control of Washington, even when supposedly under the command of another nation (the United States and Peacekeeping: Can it Work?).
Also, a U.S. military presence especially in Muslim countries, for instance, is a motivating factor for terrorists to launch attacks against the United States. Bin Laden's main reason for attacking America was the presence of the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. America needs to learn from this and not repeat the same experience in Afghanistan (Lindsay and Daalder).
And, finally, the military readiness issue has factored into this discussion about the U.S.
participating in multinational conflict management forces since the mid-1990s. Some in Congress and in the administrations that have occupied the White House feel that this type of "peacekeeping" drains funds from the DOD budget that would otherwise be used to prepare U.S. forces to deal with a threat to U.S. vital interests.
Which Way Should the U.S. Go?
There is little doubt, in my mind, which way the only superpower on earth should go. We need to not only be involved in multinational conflict management forces and efforts, but we should lead them. It is in our vital interests to do so.
President Obama has clearly stated his views on the importance of peacekeepers. He contends, "UN peacekeepers can help prevent and end conflict while enhancing international peace and security." More importantly, he understands the role the U.S. needs to play to make such missions successful. Barack Obama supports renewed U.S. leadership in support of effective United Nations and regional peace operations.
The Clinton and Bush administrations moved to enhance, if not deeply embrace, such missions as an operational tool to serve U.S. interests. Both administrations cited multinational conflict management operations as supporting national security and humanitarian goals, rather than one or the other (Holt and McKinnon).
The United States remains poised between viewing peacekeeping as a humanitarian exercise
(e.g., Darfur, Sudan) and as serving U.S. Or international security interests.
The U.S. boasts the world's most powerful military, advanced and capable beyond the dreams of most worlds' leaders. It is also home to the most powerful economy in the world. This constitutes considerable hard power and provides the U.S. with many options for achieving its policies. The U.S. is also known as the leader of the free world and as an icon of liberties, freedoms and opportunity.
The U.S. will continue to lead the way in addressing global conflicts but it highlights that, "history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs." The obvious implication in this is that unilateral U.S. action is not a snub towards multilateralism but rather a drive to force multilateral participation (Valid Reasons for the U.S. To be or Not to be...).
This is the time and place for the U.S. To step up to its international obligations. We cannot be isolationist in this day and age of terrorism, instant world-wide communication, third-world countries who can't feed their children and need help, disease-racked continents that can only turn to the U.S. For relief from HIV, and conflict around the globe.
Those who argue that multilateral conflict management forces cost too much, are ineffective, or are not a fit for our armed forces who are trained to "win," need only look at the successes -- the ones that made our world a safer place -- instead of focusing on the failures.
Most people don't realize just how frequently the multinational conflict management forces (peacekeeping) of the U.N. put themselves between trigger-happy combatants around the globe: Lebanon, Cyprus, the Golan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, Namibia, Angola, El Salvador, Cambodia, Somalia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Georgia, Liberia, Haiti, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Cote d'Ivoire, the Congo, India and Pakistan and East Timor, just in the last 20 years.
Which ones of these do most people associate with the United Nations? The ones in which U.N. troops failed to prevent disaster: Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia. That is only because it's the negative stories that make the news, and draw viewers and readers.
And what kind of world would we now live in had it not been for those victories for peace?
19 March 2002. Washington Post. 2 April 2009
"Debate: U.N. Peacekeepers and the U.S.A." 22 October 2008. idebate.org. 2 April 2009
Holt, Victoria and Michael McKinnon. "The Origins and Evolutions of U.S. Policy Towards Peace Operations." 2008. Stimson.org. 2 April 2009
Lindsay, James M. And Ivo H. Daalder. "At Issue: Should U.S. Troops Participate in an International Peacekeeping Force in Afghanistan." 2004. Council on Foreign Relations. 2 April 2009
Paul Diehl, Joseph Lepgold. Regional conflict management. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.
Serafino, Nina M. "Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations." 4 October 2004. Federation of American Scientists. 2 April 2009
"The Army and Multinational Force Compatibility." 2000. rand. 1 April 2009
"The Conflict Management Toolkit." n.d. Johns Hopkins University. 2 April 2009
"The United States and Peacekeeping: Can it Work?" 1995. Global security. 2 April 2009
"United Nations ." 2009. Encyclopedia Brittanica Online Reference Center. 2 April 2009
"United Nations Peacekeeping Forces." 2009. Encyclopedia Brittanica Online Reference Center. 2 April 2009
"Valid Reasons for the U.S. To be or Not to be part of a Multinational Conflict Management Force." 1 August 2006. Worldpolitiks.com. 2 April 2009
Wilson, George. "Peacekeeping Saves Cents, Makes Sense." 3 March 2002. Global Policy Forum. 2 April 2009
"Military Intervention And Peacekeeping At" (2009, April 03) Retrieved October 24, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/military-intervention-and-peacekeeping-at-23325
"Military Intervention And Peacekeeping At" 03 April 2009. Web.24 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/military-intervention-and-peacekeeping-at-23325>
"Military Intervention And Peacekeeping At", 03 April 2009, Accessed.24 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/military-intervention-and-peacekeeping-at-23325
It can wear down the people of a country and the members of the armed forces who are forced to stay there, and this is not a good situation for either one of these groups (Cline, 2004). Having members of the armed forces act as a police force is completely at odds with the culture that the military has, and therefore it is not something that should be encouraged.
The task of stabilizing a collapsed Pakistan may well be beyond the means of the United States and its allies. Rule-of-thumb estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size. Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces (Kagan
But we could also say that deaths caused by illegal drugs are not even close to those caused by cigarette smoking. We discussed the fact that in 1997, about sixteen thousand American died as a result of illegal and illicit drug use. In comparison, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that smoking related deaths worldwide will reach 10 million per year by 2030! And we know that 40,000-50,000 people
Hard evidence was hard to find, but in cases where corruption was proven, people were punished, often through loss of job or leadership position (Bailey 15-16). Both Harvey and Bailey recommend more transparency in the processes of registration for and distribution of aid and responsive mechanisms to receive, investigate, and address recipient complaints. The International Criminal Court seems to be able to hold itself above the corrupting influences that can affect
" Clearly, strengthening America's military is a unilateral objective that requires a focused military agenda. The remaining six features that Kugler identifies from the National Security Strategy are inherently multilateral. Championing aspirations for human dignity, the first feature, is vague but likely refers to issues related to gender, class, and social struggles worldwide. Resolving such struggles requires multilateral efforts. The second and third features, strengthening alliances to prevent and defeat global
S. was faced with a: "critical test..." (1999) when the Serbs began their assault on the Kosovar Albanians in March 1999" and in fact Starr believes this test was of more consequence than the one posed by Iraq in 1991 because in the Gulf War the United States "faced a clear act of international aggression that threatened to put vast wealth in the hands of a murderous and hostile regime."
The subjects were 613 injured Army personnel Military Deployment Services TF Report 13 admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from March 2003 to September 2004 who were capable of completing the screening battery. Soldiers were assessed at approximately one month after injury and were reassessed at four and seven months either by telephone interview or upon return to the hospital for outpatient treatment. Two hundred and forty-three soldiers