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...
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
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
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."
Military Cooperation between Nigeria and The Gambia: Strategic Factor for Regional Security 1. Geo-strategic importance of The Gambia Gambia represents a region of geo-strategic importance for Nigeria in the fight against the Boko Haram (Touray, 2015) as well as in maintaining influence in West Africa. Nigerians currently represent the largest population of foreign nationals in Gambia (Punch, 2018) and to keep political peace in the region (Blomfield, 2017). The hesitation of Yahya
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now