PROS OF INTERVENTION
For the United States, preventing conflict through intervention supports the country’s stated values. The 2006 National Security Strategy states in part,
Regional conflicts do not stay isolated for long and often spread or devolve into humanitarian tragedy or anarchy. Outside parties can exploit them to further other ends, much as al-Qaida exploited the civil war in Afghanistan. This means that even if the United States does not have a direct stake in a particular conflict, our interests are likely to be affected over time. Outsiders generally cannot impose solutions on parties that are not ready to embrace them, but outsiders can sometimes help create the conditions under which the parties themselves can take effective action.
Intervention in most cases pushes toward a settlement of the issue at hand before conflict takes place. A failure to intervene can lead to failed states requiring the United States to step in after a conflict has begun and bail the country out. As the old saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Stepping in before violence takes place requires minimal force, financial costs, and collateral damage.
CONS OF INTERVENTION
On the flip side it is argued by Edward Luttwalk and others that conflicting parties need to exhaust themselves in order to reach an agreement especially in a smaller conflict. Once the warring sides become exhausted, reaching a suitable agreement will be much easier. By stepping in too early, the United States runs the risk of a bargaining freeze between the two parties. This creates no solution as sides rearm and build up funds for another outbreak. Intervention could produce a false sense of safety. Just because the situation appears to be solved on the surface, smoldering resentment may still break out in violence. Also, while peace is on the face of the situation, sides are stealing food and recruiting future fighters from low security refugee camps.
Finally, one good aspect of war is that it produces peace. The United States must pick its interventions carefully. The American public puts a lot of pressure on leaders to intervene prematurely due in part to the CNN effect. Ideally, they will choose to intervene only when the chances of success are high and the risks of loss are low. Otherwise they run the risk of spreading itself too thin around the world in internal conflicts and being unable to confront bigger issues as they take shape.
Civil conflicts in general take place to right a perceived wrong in society. People tend to view government as inequitable, favoring those who have money and political power. The world has also become more polarized and the growing in identity politics. Certain ethnic groups run roughshod over others and leave the receiver with little hope. By nature, people want to control their own destiny. The end of the Cold War leaves room for people to make other choices rather than siding with the United States or the Soviet Union. The breakup of empires also allows populations to determine how they want to live.
