When is military force the right choice?

I think these exceptions are as old as war itself. I have no optimism that a system can be devised to preclude the rich and powerful from avoiding war, under any government. IMO, the best we can hope for is some sort of national service requirement, either always or in times of war.

GL2 said:

I think these exceptions are as old as war itself. I have no optimism that a system can be devised to preclude the rich and powerful from avoiding war, under any government. IMO, the best we can hope for is some sort of national service requirement, either always or in times of war.

I don't think that is the answer.  If I go into combat, I want to go along side some soldiers who want to be in a combat unit.

The answer is proper government - an enormously hard task for all citizens and one that is not going particularly well these days.

Well, by national service I mean some contribution to the efforts/needs of any current war; not necessarily combat. Agree on motivation of comrades.

Here is the answer to the OP's question:

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/

In simple terms, the UN Charter (which is part of the Supreme Law of the United States) allows the use of military force when a country is under attack or imminent threat of attack or when authorized by the UN Security Council.

BG9 said:

Tom_Reingold said:

Congresspeople who send other people's children to war can do so easily if they know their children will not be sent to war. If all eligible people have to go, they would not be so quick.

One can naively assume all will serve equally. 

The reality is accommodations in the military can be done for children of the elite, such as the children of congress people or congress people themselves. 

The having "served our country" cachet can be useful. 

Just look at Bush II's illustrious military career or that of Sen. Lindsey Graham.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/opinion/lindsey-grahams-curious-military-career.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-lindsey-graham-years-of-light-duty-as-a-lawmaker-in-the-air-reserve/2015/08/02/c9beb9fc-3545-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html

One could even reason doing so may extend a war. The elite can say "Our kids are serving. We are all sacrificing and we're not complaining. Why are you whining about this war? Don't you love your country? Do you want to be a quitter after all this sacrifice? To dishonor those who have given their all?"

http://www.agreeley.com/articles/120106.html

These are fair points I had not considered, but it doesn't seem to be a common practice lately.

I like the idea of mandatory national service if it can also be entirely non-military such as Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

paulsurovell said:

Here is the answer to the OP's question:


http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/

In simple terms, the UN Charter (which is part of the Supreme Law of the United States) allows the use of military force when a country is under attack or imminent threat of attack or when authorized by the UN Security Council.

You write this as though it has some practical application.

Tom_Reingold said:

I like the idea of mandatory national service if it can also be entirely non-military such as Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

Well, that would defeat the entire purpose.  If Trump's kid can join habitat for humanity to avoid Syria he would.  Bullets need to fly at the children of the wealthy if you want to deter the use of the military.

Tom_Reingold said:

I like the idea of mandatory national service if it can also be entirely non-military such as Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

Seriously!  People must realize that freedom isn't free.  It must be paid for with servitude. 

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

I like the idea of mandatory national service if it can also be entirely non-military such as Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

Seriously!  People must realize that freedom isn't free.  It must be paid for with servitude. 

ISWYDT.

Invading countries that lack a functioning, stable, supportive government is folly. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan .

ligeti said:

Invading countries that lack a functioning, stable, supportive government is folly. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan .

Could you flesh out your thoughts on Libya a bit more, and how it fits in with Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems the odd one out on your list, both in the type of US military involvement and in its scale. We didn't invade Libya, and our involvement there has been orders of magnitude less than your other two examples.

To my mind, there's two aspects to our involvement in Libya - when Gaddafi was still in power, and was credibly threatening large scale massacres, were we right to get involved to try and prevent that? Second, after Gaddafi fell, what should our involvement have been (and I guess a third question - would Gaddafi have fallen had we abstained from any intervention at all?).

unless our country is attacked, the answer is that in almost no circumstance is military force the right choice.  Even if the goal is "laudable," like removing a dictator from power, military invasion almost never improves the circumstances.  It's as if you had prostate cancer and your neighbor came over with a "cure" and proceeded to use a chain saw to cut off both of your legs and an arm.  He had a laudable goal of curing your cancer.  And in certain specific instances amputation of three of your limbs could have been a proper course of treatment.  But in 99% of the cases, the treatment is worse than the disease.

tjohn said:

paulsurovell said:

Here is the answer to the OP's question:


http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/

In simple terms, the UN Charter (which is part of the Supreme Law of the United States) allows the use of military force when a country is under attack or imminent threat of attack or when authorized by the UN Security Council.

You write this as though it has some practical application.

In general the US tries to justify use of military force by citing the UN Charter directly or indirectly by invoking Security Council resolutions or threats of imminent attack.  Bush's legal pretext for attacking Iraq, for example, was the Authorization of Military Force Resolution that demanded Iraqi compliance with relevant UN Security resolutions.

It is ever the way of the species to cloak naked self-interest in principles.  

FilmCarp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

I like the idea of mandatory national service if it can also be entirely non-military such as Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

Well, that would defeat the entire purpose.  If Trump's kid can join habitat for humanity to avoid Syria he would.  Bullets need to fly at the children of the wealthy if you want to deter the use of the military.

I don't mean it would deter the use of the military. I'm jes' sayin' I like the idea.

Tom_Reingold said:

FilmCarp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

I like the idea of mandatory national service if it can also be entirely non-military such as Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

Well, that would defeat the entire purpose.  If Trump's kid can join habitat for humanity to avoid Syria he would.  Bullets need to fly at the children of the wealthy if you want to deter the use of the military.

I don't mean it would deter the use of the military. I'm jes' sayin' I like the idea.

It's positively Heinleinian. 

ml1 said:

unless our country is attacked, the answer is that in almost no circumstance is military force the right choice.  Even if the goal is "laudable," like removing a dictator from power, military invasion almost never improves the circumstances.  It's as if you had prostate cancer and your neighbor came over with a "cure" and proceeded to use a chain saw to cut off both of your legs and an arm.  He had a laudable goal of curing your cancer.  And in certain specific instances amputation of three of your limbs could have been a proper course of treatment.  But in 99% of the cases, the treatment is worse than the disease.

By that measure, are you saying that had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor the U.S. should have stayed out of WW II?

Our population before Pearl harbor was very ambivalent about the war.  The attack was a blessing for Roosevelt, the British, and the Soviets.

FilmCarp said:

Our population before Pearl harbor was very ambivalent about the war.  The attack was a blessing for Roosevelt, the British, and the Soviets.

But that doesn't answer the question.  If a genocide is being perpetrated, should we make an effort to stop it?

Steve said:

FilmCarp said:

Our population before Pearl harbor was very ambivalent about the war.  The attack was a blessing for Roosevelt, the British, and the Soviets.

But that doesn't answer the question.  If a genocide is being perpetrated, should we make an effort to stop it?

Only if the cost is low (e.g. Somalia during the Clinton Administration).

I think yes, if we are not alone.  One view of a situation could be wrong, but if many countries  agree it is likely accurate.   As humans we should have some obligation  to help other humans, even at a cost.

FilmCarp said:

I think yes, if we are not alone.  One view of a situation could be wrong, but if many countries  agree it is likely accurate.   As humans we should have some obligation  to help other humans, even at a cost.

Not at the cost of significant war.

I guess we disagree.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Steve said:

I guess we disagree.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Are we better off today because we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries in ways that were unprecedented prior to WW II.  I would say that, in the balance, no.

We should have gone into Rwanda.  I'm not talking about "civil" wars, I'm talking genocide and similar types of situations (see my posts above).  If groups of people are being systematically slaughtered, I believe that we (and everyone else) have a moral obligation to do all we can to stop it.

eta:  @tjohn No, we should not have been "meddling" into the internal affairs of other nations as we have been in the last 35 years or so.  While I believe going into Afghanistan was right, Iraq was idiotic from the get-go.