Part I: Do you think that the United States has the right to intervene in another country to protect our economic or political interests? Under what conditions is intervention justified? Explain.
Part II: Do you think that other countries have the right to intervene in the United States to protect their economic or political interest? Under what conditions is intervention justified? Explain.
Part III: Summarize your discussion.
As you know, I cannot write this paper for you. Here at Brain Mass, all we can do is give you a few ideas, not answers. We can make your life easy.
I know this field well. I know what professors are looking for when you write this stuff.
Here are a few decent sources (all on Google books):
Imperial Alibis: Rationalizing U.S. Intervention After the Cold War; Stephen Rosskamm Shalom
Righteous Violence: The Ethics and Politics of Military Intervention; C. A. J. Coady
Dimensions of Western Military Intervention; Colin McInnes, Nicholas J. Wheeler
U.S. Foreign Policy in Perspective: Clients, Enemies and Empire; David Sylvan, Stephen Majeski
American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One-Superpower World; Lea Brilmayer (this one is important, please check it out first) start with chapter 3.
Now, to the issues.
How to justify intervention.
Your professor probably wants you to couch your answer in some theoretical guise. Its part of being in college. It is not so much the nature of your answer, but how you express it. Therefore, for papers like this, your "opinion" does not matter so much as how you express and defend it.
Here are the basic theories that impinge on our topic:
1. Realism - this is the most common approach that stresses that each state in the world odes what is necessary for its interest. What is this interest? Security. The nature of security is controversial. Realism is not so much an opinion but a justification for any formulation of an opinion whatsoever. The idea is that governments are the only important actors in world affairs, and they seek to harm other countries for the sake of their security. Weapons and armies, as well as economic power, are the main levers of coercion in the system. International systems are created by dominant powers, called a hegemon. You need to utter the word "hegemon" in your paper at least 5 times to get an A (trust me).
2. Idealism - this is another word for modern "liberalism." The concept is that justification is permitted on humanitarian grounds, so long as the humanitarian issue is in sync with the ideology. In other words, the "right" people are the ones who need to be rescued.
3. Radicalism - this is the theory that states are really just bodyguards for economic elites. States intervene really to enhance their economic position (really, the position of the big firms that run the country) and open the doors to greater trade.
4. "End of History" - this is a huge one. Francis Fukayama at George Mason wrote that since the Cold War, the US ended history. There are no more fundamental issues to be debated. Politics has reached its end with the ideologies of free markets, elections and constitutional government. Here, intervention ...
The solution provides insight and advise to help students tackle the task (see above) on the topic of US intervention in another country.
1.As President Obama observed, "It is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan" (speech attached). What vital national interest is at risk in Afghanistan and how does our military involvement support the vital national interest? Explain and support your point of view using specific examples from official U.S. documents (NSS, NDS, QDR, etc.)
2. How does the 2008 National Defense Strategy counterbalance DoD's tendency to focus on conventional conflicts rather than irregular wars. 2 pages
The analysis and interpretation of each questions, minimum are 4 pages, but I will do the other 2 pages por each questions.View Full Posting Details