Custom essays on The role of the US military in the support of the US Government’s policy in fragile states
At the same time, the military play an important role not only in the maintenance of power in fragile states, but they may be also a very powerful tool used in the foreign policy. In this respect, the example of the US foreign policy perfectly proves the extent to which the military may be helpful in the implementation of the foreign policy of the US, which is the only superpower in the contemporary world. In fact, it should be said that the US use the military power in abundance in recent years. For instance, within the last decade there were at least three major military operations involving the US military forces and, which targeted at the support of the US Government’s policy in relation to fragile states. To put it more precisely, it is worth mentioning the Kosovo conflict and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these military campaigns were actually launched by the US to establish a “democratic” order in “undemocratic” states, as it was the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance. In fact, the pretext or cause of the military intervention of the US military may differ, but what is unchangeable is the fact that the military are used to support the Government’s policy.
Basically, the military campaign in Kosovo apparently was targeted at Slobodan Milosevic who was perceived an authoritarian leader that often opposed to the US. At the same time, the US authorities and the official policy of the US was targeted at the change of the ruling regime in Yugoslavia because it destabilized the situation in a strategically important region for the US. Anyway, the US needed the loyal regime in Yugoslavia and the American Government readily used the military force to weaken the position of Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia and, in actuality, it is the military intervention of the US army that determined the failure of Milosevic’s regime and his further arrest (Allcock, 188).
In this respect, it is obvious that the US had little political instruments to force Slobodan Milosevic to give up the power and reform the political system of Yugoslavia. In such a context, the military operation of the NATO, which actually launched and controlled by the US, was a perfect means to destroy an opponent of the US politic in the region. At the same time, at the present moment, the UN forces and the US military forces basically control the situation in the Balkan region and are an important factor of the stability in the region.
Practically, the same situation could be observed in Iraq. In fact, the political and economic pressure on Saddam Hussein, who was viewed as one of the major enemies of the US, were practically ineffective. At any rate, his regime persisted regardless all the sanctions applied to Iraq by the US and its allies. In such a situation, the military campaign launched by the US against Iraq under the pretext of the protection of national interests had proved to be consistently more effective than any other measure, either political or economic, undertaken before. In such a situation, the threat of the weapon of mass destruction that could have been in the possession of Iraq was only a pretext to destroy another political opponent of the US in the region which was even more strategically important for the US than the Balkans (Lopez, 83).
In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that Iraq did not actually possess the weapon of mass destruction, while the current role of the US military forces and its allies proves the fact that they were used to establish the control of the US over the country. At any rate, nowadays it is obvious that the existing regime could hardly survive in Iraq if there were no military support from the part of the US. In fact, the same situation is observed in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, it is possible to refer to Pakistan, where the military also play a very important role since the ruling President of Pakistan, who is actually an authoritarian leader, heavily relies on the military and he gained the power in the result of the military coup-d’état (Fisk, 179). Nevertheless, the US did not use the military force against this regime as long as it remains loyal to the US.
At the same time, it reveals the general trend in the policy of the US, which actually may be characterized the policy of double standards. In fact, nowadays the US amply uses the military force to destroy regimes that oppose to the US or which may threaten to their national interests in any part of the world. Moreover, the US pay little attention to diplomatic tools, which could solve conflicts since the military interventions proved to be consistently more effective.
Obviously, such a situation is unacceptable and need to be changed. In fact, the role of the military power should be minimized and it is not only the US that should change its policy in relation to the use of the military forces, but it also fragile countries that should be more careful with the use of the military forces. As a rule, the military power may give the political power and stabilize the situation in a fragile country but, on the other hand, it leads to the establishment of undemocratic regimes, which could hardly persist without the support of the military. In this respect, examples of Iraq, Afghanistan and other fragile countries reveal the fact that, at the moment, the military is the major power that maintains the stability in these countries. However, they do not solve problems of these countries. In stark contrast, they aggravate their problems and make internal conflicts practically irresolvable.
To put it more precisely, the regime of Saddam Hussein, for instance, had managed to keep opponents of the regime obedient, but the obedience was gained through mass political repressions and physical elimination of political opponents. After the downfall of this regime, the new Iraqi government, which power is based on the military support of the US and its allies, faces even more serious problem since the country is simply torn apart between hostile movements. In fact, it is obvious that the retreat of the US military from the country would lead to the emergence of chaos and civil war in Iraq. On the other hand, the presence of the US military in the country is of little help for the resolution of internal conflicts in the country. This example is common and the similar situation may be observed in other fragile states such as Afghanistan or the Balkan region. Consequently, the military forces are practically useless in the resolution of conflicts, but they are very effective in maintenance of the order and stability in fragile countries.
In such a context, it possible to recommend limiting the use of the military forces and continuing the international policy, which targets at the strict control over fragile states. However, to improve the situation in fragile countries it is necessary to assist these countries to solve their problems. In this respect, the role of the UN should be more significant than the policy of the US, for instance. The UN should use political and economic tools as well as the military ones to prevent conflicts and help fragile countries to recover. In other words, the UN should just perform its functions it is supposed to perform from the day of its foundation and, in addition, it is possible to enlarge the functions of this global organization to develop humanitarian programs to support fragile states. At this point, it is very important to make the UN the major international organization that could control conflicts and keep peace in the world, while humanitarian programs of the UN can stabilize the situation in fragile countries because roots of their problems are socioeconomic by nature.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.