Peer edit Advocacy paper

Wang

1

Qiushi Wang

WRITING 39C

Fovad Oveisy

18 August 2019

Advocacy for Terminating Endless US Abroad Military Interventions

The US abroad military interventions have been presenting an increasing trend during the past decades. America attempts to directly involve domestic conflicts in other countries in a physical form or supports the nation with a large number of funds and equipment. However, the cruel fact is that the US receives little feedback. The chaos in the turbulent nation has not been settled down after the arrival and humanitarian intervention of the US. What’s worse, things can worsen sometimes because of the US abroad military interventions. American citizens criticize the diplomatic policy of undertaking abroad military interventions and advocate the termination of endless interventions due to its negative impacts on Americans who witness a waste of financial resources, human resources and material resources focusing on oversea affairs. The endless abroad military interventions overseas damage their acquired interests since abroad interventions cost much national finance but ring little effects. Thus, advocacy for enhancing the power of Congress and weakening the decisive right of the president become the core of terminate US excessive abroad military interventions. Besides, setting a set of conditions for applying to launch military interventions and asking for the assistance of international society and organizations is also very necessary to decrease the number of US abroad military interventions.

First of all, American people advocate strengthening the power of Congress in the supervision of US military interventions by passing legislation that restricts military interventions overseas launched too easily by the American president. James Carden, an adviser on Russia policy serving at the US State Department and a contributing writer at The Nation, posts and discusses a recent poll that shows the attitude of the public toward US military interventions overseas. According to Carden, 86.4 percent of the surveyed Americans think the American military should be utilized as a last resort and 57 percent of them feel US military assistance to foreign countries is counterproductive (Carden). From the data presentation of the poll result, it is easily observed that most American people hold an opposite attitude toward American abroad military aids and refuse to accept the US offers weapons and money to foreign countries. What’s more, Americans strongly advocate for Congress to reassert its power to supervise American military interventions overseas, as Carden states in the article that 70.8 percent of those polled believe Congress should pass legislation to restrain military action overseas (Carden). Legislation of Congress is indeed an effective solution to solve the excessive US abroad military interventions. Congress’s legislation may mainly focus on three aspects, including the clear definition of US goals to authorize oversea military engagement, the involvement of oversight and accountability associated with the location of military troops, and the adherence to the Geneva Convention of receiving countries that receive the donation of funds and equipment from the US. Thomas Ehrlich, a consulting professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, explores the legal process in foreign affairs by taking military interventions as a typical example. As Ehrlich states in his study, the law can be adopted in the process of deciding whether and how to use American military force, especially on foreign civil strife, because decisions about whether using military force or not are mostly involved in foreign conflicts (Ehrlich 637). In other words, the author emphasizes the significance of forming a legislative procedure to restrict the scale and frequency of abroad military interventions. On that occasion, the American government and Congress are encouraged to arrange a legislative process to regulate the US abroad military actions that are mainly manipulated by the American president nowadays.

Basically, it is very hard for two major parties to reach a consensus on any domestic or foreign issues, however, bipartisan cooperation is advocated to force more domestic oversight and control of American military interventions oversea. American people support the form of bipartisan cooperation because most of them hold a skeptical attitude toward the advantages acquired from abroad military interventions and military assistance in the forms of funds and equipment. Jake Miller, a writer in CBS News, describes an interesting partisan conversion that 40 percent of Republicans think the US should be itself, while only 35 percent of Democrats agree (Miller). According to Miller’s description, the Republicans than the Democrats are more likely to use a mild solution to solve foreign entanglements, but traditionally the Publicans prefer to interrupt overseas affairs. This partisan conversion shapes the foundation of the bipartisan initiative. A majority of bipartisan people advocate a kind of realistic and restrictive foreign policy toward foreign conflicts. Due to the common opinion of American involvement in foreign conflicts, the cooperation between these two parties can be a solution to solve the endless abroad military actions. A survey undertaken by Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy indicates that 51.3 percent of voters express they will not vote for their Congressional representatives if they fail to withdraw from abroad conflict regions (Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy). That is to say, American people believe the advocacy of strengthening Congress’s interventions of oversea military actions is an effective way to safeguard the safety of American people, especially of American veterans. In this sense, American people think excessive abroad military interventions cannot only damage their economic and social benefits but also threaten domestic safety. James A Piazza and Seung-Whan Choi, professors at Pennsylvania State University and University of Illinois respectively, explore the effects of international military interventions on the transnational terrorist backlash. According to Piazza and Choi, it is demonstrated that nations will experience more terrorism after they involve in foreign military interventions (686). The finding conforms to the concerns of Americans who worry about their safety if the American military force intervenes too many foreign conflicts. In this sense, it is very necessary to establish a supervising pattern of Congress through bipartisan cooperation and the support of American people.

What’s more, a series of rules needs advocating to limit the scale and frequency of American abroad military interventions. The current situation is that America launches military assistance to other countries too easily, which is an urgent issue requiring solving. Thus American policymakers should set specific rules before America launches military actions overseas so as to decrease the unnecessary military conflicts, restrict the behaviors of American troops and lower the oversea expenditure of America. The first principle is that it is improper for America to send its troops to dangerous regions causally unless American national security interest receives harms. Christopher Preble, the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains that US policymakers should not risk the lives of US troops to protect the interests of other countries (Preble). Based on the statement of Preble, American policymakers must distinguish the emergency that must launch the American military to foreign regions. Also, the safety of American citizens should be put in the prior position instead of the benefits of a foreign nation. Then, the second rule is that the American troop’s involvement of foreign affairs should reach a clear national consensus with American people who must understand why they have to risk their lives and fortunes to involve in a foreign conflict. American people should have a say whether to implement abroad military interventions or not. Gene Healy, an American political pundit, editor, and reporter, highlights that Congress has always been escaping from its obligation for the past decades because almost all the Congressional representatives are reluctant to express their supports or opposition publicly to American abroad military interventions (Healy). In the next, before the involvement of abroad wars, policymakers need to clarify a clear and reachable military goal. If a set of clear and reachable military objectives does not exist, then the American troops are not allowed to be assigned to some dangerous areas across the world. By establishing a set of rules to inform American people of the necessity of involving foreign military conflicts, a kind of fair and realistic American abroad military policy emerges.

Besides, the advocacy for the assistance of international society as well as international organizations is another vital approach to solve endless American abroad military interventions. American presidents and policymakers should be aware of the significance of international society in the process of maintaining worldwide peace and safety. Thus, instead of seeking solutions on its strengths, America needs to cooperate with the international society to maintain peace in turbulent regions across the world. Benjamin Valentino, a professor at Dartmouth College, indicates that people in the world would find better ways to implement abroad humanitarianism if the international community were willing to pay the costs or bear the risks (740). The author highlights the responsibility of the international community to military interventions abroad and denies the rationality of America as the main force of intervening oversea conflicts. Frederic S. Pearson, as a professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis discusses the correlation between foreign military interventions and domestic disputes. According to Pearson, intervention in foreign states’ domestic conflicts may entail considerable costs and risks, thereby international community should contribute to the conflicts rather than any single nation that deals with the conflicts on its own (259). Robert A. Pape, an American political scientist, explores the standards for the US and other members of the international community to intervene in foreign civil affairs. Pape suggests the cooperation of the US and other members in the international community during the interventions, which emphasizes the duty of the international society (41).

In short, there is three advocacy for terminating endless American abroad military interventions. The first advocacy is to enhance the power of Congress and American people through speeding up the legislation process and bipartisan cooperation. Then, American policymakers need to set a series of principles before the interventions of foreign conflicts. In addition, it is not a wise decision for the US to undertake military interventions on its own because interventions cost and risk much, thus to positively seek the aid of other nations and the international community is essential.

Works Cited

Carden, James. "A New Poll Shows the Public Is Overwhelmingly Opposed to Endless US Military Interventions." The Nation, 9 January 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/new-poll-shows-public-overwhelmingly-opposed-to-endless-us-military-interventions/. Accessed 18 August 2019.

Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy. “Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy Releases Research that Shows Americans are Ready for Decreased US Military Intervention and Increased Congressional Oversight.” PR Newswire, 3 January 2018, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/committee-for-responsible-foreign-policy-releases-research-that-shows-americans-are-ready-for-decreased-us-military-intervention-and-increased-congressional-oversight-300577145.html. Accessed 18 August 2019.

Ehrlich, Thomas. “The Legal Process in Foreign Affairs: Military Interventions----A Testing Case.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 27, no. 3, 1975, pp. 637-652.

Healy, Gene. “Bringing an End to the Forever War.” War on the Rocks, 29 August 2016, https://warontherocks.com/2016/08/bringing-an-end-to-the-forever-war/. Accessed 18 August 2019.

Miller, Jake. “How do Americans Feel about US Involvement in Foreign Crises?” CBS News, 14 September 2014, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-do-americans-feel-about-u-s-involvement-in-foreign-crises/. Accessed 18 August 2019.

Pape, Robert A. “When Duty Calls: A Pragmatic Standard of Humanitarian Intervention.” International Security, vol. 37, no. 1, 2012, pp. 41-80.

Pearson, Frederic S. “Foreign Military Interventions and Domestic Disputes.” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, 1974, pp. 259-290.

Piazza, James A., and Seung-Whan Choi. “International Military Interventions and Transnational Terrorist Backlash.” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 3, 2018, pp. 686-695.

Preble, Christopher. “New Rules for US Military Intervention.” War on the Rocks, 20 September 2016, https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/new-rules-for-u-s-military-intervention/. Accessed 18 August 2019.

Valentino, Benjamin. “ The Perils of Limited Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the 1990s.” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, 2018, pp. 723-740.