When can an invasion be justified?

druidravi

King
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
871
Location
Spirit World
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-syria-crisis-world-idUSBRE84S0XF20120529

Spoiler :

The United States and seven other Western governments expelled Syrian diplomats from their capitals on Tuesday in a coordinated action against President Bashar al-Assad's government spurred by revulsion over the killing of more than 100 civilians in a Syrian town.
France's Fabius, however, ruled out ground intervention in Syria, saying the risk the conflict could spread was too great.

"The Syrian army is powerful. No state is ready to consider ground intervention at the current time," Fabius said.
Russia said on Monday it was alarmed by the killings in Houla but that it believed both sides were to blame.


So when is an invasion by foreign powers to topple a non-elected regime be justified? I formerly was supportive of military intervention whenever there is an active threat of large scale killings and the regime is not an elected one . I didn't support the invasion of Iraq as there was no active threat present .

Increasingly I'm growing weary of any sort of military intervention . All they have done is increase the death toll of the natives whether it was Iraq or Afghanistan . The reality on ground is soldiers, while quite effective at destroying the enemy are quite poor at peacekeeping in a hostile environment . Way too many human right abuses occur , involving soldiers in conflict hotspots throughout the world where they need to put down a popular rebellion / uprising / guerrilla warfare.

I was sort of supportive of a toppling of the Mynamar regime through military action as there was already a strong pro democracy movement in the form of Aang San Suu Kyi and her party . With recent reforms the military junta is slowly moving towards a democracy . An invasion wouldn't have brought about such a bloodless transition and it would have taken lot of time to get a stable political setup in the country .

So will supporting and funding pro-democracy movements in the country and waiting for a change to come from inside the country be the right move ? Would this work in all cases? When would you support a military overthrow of a regime ?
 
The first question we need to answer here is if a military intervention would actually help the Syrians.
 
The Syrian situation is just an example .I want to see when do people feel comfortable with a military intervention of any country . What conditions need to be met for them to feel it is justified.
 
The leaders of the west get together and through darts at possible start dates, from all I can tell.
 
1st When no other means are viable and secondly if one of the following applies:

A) Genocide or state terrorism (systematically killing people to keep them in line) or being a failed state + commitment to clean up the mess one will inevitably create and along with that reasonable assumption that invasion will not cause more hardship/trouble then the party or parties one intends to put in check
B) Act of war against a sovereign nation
 
Agree with genocide or act of war. Qualification: a bunch of killed civilians =/= genocide. Your invasion will also kill civilians.
 
The bar should be very high as the consequences are catastrophic and the results are always uncertain.

The most appropriate situation would be a counterinvasion such as the first Gulf War.

As in all things human a very rigid standard should be adhered to. Otherwise rationalization kicks in.

If you don't respect the sovereignity of others then you are just a skip and a jump from classic might makes right. Which is fine as long as you have the might.

Most American actions have been mistakes.

The recent killings in Syria were probably not so black and white as interventionists would have us believe. Restraint is called for.

I also believe that the US should severely restrain the power of the President to undertake invasions and occupations of foreign countries. A declaration of war by the representatives of the various states should be required.
 
Agree with genocide or act of war. Qualification: a bunch of killed civilians =/= genocide. Your invasion will also kill civilians.
Very true. Which is why I didn't leave it with state terrorism, but added "reasonable assumption that invasion will not cause more hardship/trouble then the party or parties one intends to put in check". But I also add, that it is arguable that genocide does not need such a requirement, so to deter any future genocide, while it would be too much to hope to deter any future state terrorism.
 
Agree with genocide or act of war. Qualification: a bunch of killed civilians =/= genocide. Your invasion will also kill civilians.
With the goal of STOPPING said killings sooner rather than later.
 
Why do invasions need to be justified?

Because of universal human rights. An invasion will probably kill some innocents, no matter what, and always destroy property. Rarely are invasions good, yet sometimes the overthrown dictatorships were even worse.

In case of an invasion, if the government is overthrown, a new order should be enforced by the invading country. You can't leave a country in anarchy.
 
Why do invasions need to be justified?
In our modern age, leaders who do an invasion always offer a justification of some kind to the press or to the masses. So yeah, the general consensus is that invasions need to be justified.
 
Why do invasions need to be justified?

Well from a democratic standpoint you sort of have to justify to the voters why you are about to spend billions of dollars and risk thousands of lives on both sides. Voters tend to want reasons for that sort of action.
 
the new French president has immediately jumped in with both feet , as in these days of austerity , one has few places to prove himself without much cost . ( You know , invaded places do not cost that much for the invaders ). In their exultation , as invading a certain country to Turkey's south might alleviate troubles at home , a news programme in Turkey even said the French were ready to intervene in Turkey . No "What the ..." moments here ... Oh , please drop by !
 
If they have oil then the invasion is just.
 
I think it's already justified. Whether it's a good idea or not is another question. I think it's clear that if we weren't in a recession, if our troops weren't already overstretched and exhausted from other military campaigns, if our actions would hasten Assad's fall as quickly as it hastened Gaddafi's, and if there weren't any better option, then we'd have gone to war a year ago, when the Arab league condemned Assad (assuming this condemnation would have firmed up into support for foreign military intervention).
 
I think it's already justified. Whether it's a good idea or not is another question. I think it's clear that if we weren't in a recession, if our troops weren't already overstretched and exhausted from other military campaigns, if our actions would hasten Assad's fall as quickly as it hastened Gaddafi's, and if there weren't any better option, then we'd have gone to war a year ago, when the Arab league condemned Assad (assuming this condemnation would have firmed up into support for foreign military intervention).
You're forgetting one thing... strategic importance... If Syria had the strategic importance we might step in.
 
Top Bottom