Should the State Interfere with the Military Conflicts of Other States? In What Way? In What Cases?

Should the State Interfere with the Military Conflicts of Other States? In What Way? In What Cases?

The state has a duty to protect its citizens from harm, both within and outside its borders. This means that when other countries conflict, the state must decide whether or not to get involved in protecting its people. Whether or not to intervene is often controversial, especially when it involves countries with different ideologies or interests. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why the state should interfere in the military conflicts of other countries. First and foremost, the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and ensure their safety. Secondly, when other countries are engaged in conflict, there is a high risk of destabilization or proliferation of violence. This can ultimately lead to increased threats of war and harm on a global scale. On the other hand, there are several reasons why the state should not interfere in the military conflicts of other countries. First, the state has no business dictating what other countries can and cannot do within their borders. Secondly, outside interference can often make a conflict worse rather than better. In some cases, it can even lead to the outbreak of new conflicts. Whether or not to interfere in another country’s military conflict is complex, and there is no clear-cut answer. However, in most cases, it is safer to err on the side of caution and act when necessary to protect the state and its citizens. In this essay, I will argue that the state should interfere with the military conflicts of other states to protect its citizens. I will discuss how the state can interfere and the cases in which interference is justified.

The state has to protect its citizens from harm, both within and outside its borders. This responsibility is particularly relevant for potential military conflicts that affect its citizens. Therefore, the state should intervene in other states’ military conflicts if they directly affect their citizens, either through conscription or through casualties from the war. For example, in the case of Ukraine and the Russian war in Crimea, the Ukrainian state should protect its people and needs to engage in military conflict with Russia if they want to do so (Marples and Duke 262). The Ukrainian government has said that it will not intervene militarily in Crimea, but this may change if the conflict escalates and directly affects Ukrainian citizens. On the other hand, there are cases in which state interference with other states’ military conflicts would be inappropriate or even unjust. For example, if the conflict between Russia and Ukraine was entirely a matter of national sovereignty, the Ukrainian government should stay out of it (Marples and Duke 262). Moreover, interfering with another country’s military conflict could cause an escalation in tensions among countries that otherwise might not have occurred.

Despite the potential for escalation and other risks, it is safer to err on the side of caution and to act when necessary to protect the state and its citizens from harm. For example, the United States government has often sought to prevent genocide or mass atrocities, even if they put U.S. citizens at risk of retaliation (Evans 23). For example, in 1990, the U.S. government launched a military campaign to protect Iraqi Kurds from the atrocities of Saddam Hussein’s government, even though this action put U.S. citizens at risk of retaliation by Hussein and his forces (Wedgwood 577). In cases like this, governments need to act to prevent a greater harm from occurring. Another example is the 2003 intervention in Iraq, which was launched to prevent Saddam Hussein from using chemical weapons against his people (Roth 86). While this intervention did not go as planned, and there were significant negative consequences, it is arguable that the humanitarian goals of the intervention outweighed the risks. Also, intervening in other states’ military conflicts can help to deter future conflict and reduce the likelihood of war. In short, while interfering with another state’s military conflict comes with certain risks and downsides, it is often a necessary step that needs to be taken to protect lives and prevent greater harm.

The state should only intervene in other states’ military conflicts if it is in the state’s best interests to do so. This means that the state should only take action if the potential benefits outweigh the risks and costs. For instance, if the goal is to protect citizens in other states from harm or death, there needs to be a clear plan for achieving this goal and a realistic expectation that it can succeed. Moreover, intervention may not be in the best interests of a state if it will create more enemies or if it will make the state less safe. For example, the United States’ intervention in Iraq in 2003 made the country less safe by creating more enemies and increasing instability (Pollack 2). In addition, the costs of intervention must be considered. These can include financial costs and the costs in terms of human lives. For a state to intervene in another state’s military conflict, the benefits outweigh the risks and costs. Another example is the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011 as part of the wider Arab Spring (Aday et al. 3). In this conflict, multiple states have intervened to support opposing sides of the conflict, ranging from the United States and the European Union supporting rebel groups against the government of Bashar al-Assad, to Russia and Iran supporting Assad’s regime. Each state has its reasons for intervening in the conflict, and these reasons must be weighed against the risks and costs of intervention.

The state also has a responsibility to promote peace and stability, both within its borders and the international community. This means that the state should take action to prevent or resolve conflicts before they escalate into violence. For example, the United States government has often used diplomacy and economic sanctions as tools to resolve conflicts and prevent them from escalating into violence (Hultman and Peksen 1317). Moreover, the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens from harm. This includes both physical harm and harm that could come from other states’ military conflicts. For example, the United States government has often sought to prevent genocide or mass atrocities, even if they put U.S. citizens at risk of retaliation. In cases like this, governments need to act to prevent a greater harm from occurring. Another example is when another state’s military conflict threatens a state’s citizens. In this case, the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and may use force if necessary. Finally, the state has a responsibility to uphold international law. This includes both treaties and customary international law. For example, the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with the authorization of the Security Council (Cox 239). In cases where a state violates international law, the international community is responsible for taking action. This may include diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, or even military force.

The state should only intervene in other states’ military conflicts when it has a clear plan for success and the potential risks outweigh the potential costs. While there is no doubt that the state is responsible for promoting peace and stability, this responsibility must be balanced against the state’s need to protect its citizens and interests. For example, while the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 had some humanitarian goals, it was also motivated by political and economic concerns (Dobbins 87). In addition, there were significant risks associated with this intervention, including an increase in terrorism and instability in the region. Furthermore, while the intervention ultimately failed to achieve its stated goals, it did have some limited successes. These include the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and an increase in Iraqi oil production. Also, while the intervention has been costly in terms of lives and money, it is important to remember that the costs of inaction can also be high. For example, had the U.S. not intervened in Iraq, Saddam Hussein might still be in power, and the country might have been embroiled in a civil war (Mearsheimer 11). Therefore, while there are risks associated with state interference in other states’ military conflicts, these risks must be balanced against the potential costs of inaction.

Outside interference can often make a conflict worse. This is because outside actors often do not clearly understand the situation and may inadvertently make the situation worse. For example, the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 made the country less safe by creating more enemies and increasing instability (Tirman 32). In addition, outside actors may be motivated by their interests rather than the parties’ interests in the conflict. For example, the United States’ intervention in Iraq was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to control Iraq’s oil resources. Also, the U.S. interference in the ongoing Ukraine-Russian war is driven, in part, by a desire to contain Russian power (Heller 138). Thus, it is important to consider the reasons for outside interference before intervening in another state’s military conflict.

While the state is responsible for promoting peace and stability, it must also act with caution when intervening in other states’ military conflicts. In order to effectively intervene in these conflicts, the state must have a clear plan for success and weigh the potential risks against the potential costs. Outside interference can often worsen a conflict by escalating tensions between warring parties and furthering the interests of outside actors rather than those of the conflict’s participants. However, state intervention can be an effective tool for promoting peace and stability in certain cases. Therefore, it is crucial for states to carefully consider the reasons for their interventions and make decisions in the best interests of all parties involved. The state’s responsibility to protect its citizens and interests is paramount, but it must be balanced against the potential costs of inaction. Ultimately, this decision comes down to a balance between caution and pragmatism.