When should U.S. use military intervention?

As I began writing this column about developing a better strategy for U.S. military intervention, two of the “outposts of tyranny” — North Korea and Iran — spoke threateningly.

The North Korean message, in particular, had ominous implications. Pyongyang’s public admission of acquiring nuclear weapons poses the more dramatic and immediate challenge, although Tehran’s continuing pursuit of nuclear technology is nothing to ignore.

How should Americans respond?

Several weeks ago, I asked readers to give me some feedback on the issue of whether to intervene or not to intervene, and 1,326 of them have to date.

I’ll share some of those perspectives first. One comment that traveled perhaps the shortest distance came from Connie Staudt in the Orlando area. “I am against all pre-emptive wars,” she wrote. Staudt disagreed with President Bush’s pre-emptive strike in Iraq, although she favored sending U.S. troops to Afghanistan because it was the source of the 9-11 attack.

Another comment that traveled perhaps the longest distance originated in Zug, Switzerland. Ray Owen wrote, “Already, we are witnessing the preliminaries to build up a case against Iran. Your question about how strict should rules be for U.S. military interventions seems to be irrelevant if it is going to be a parallel case to what we have seen with Iraq. In my humble opinion, the rules should be so strict that a repetition of Iraq cannot happen.”

Robert Cmelak, of Laguna Niguel, Calif., had a different idea. “We re-elected Bush to fight radical Islam and to keep our country safe. He has done just that. We’ve rounded up or killed many terrorist leaders. The Palestinian Authority, Iraq and Ukraine have had elections. Libya has changed its attitude. North Korea is imploding, and the young people in Iran would prefer to be friendly with the United States. Let Bush alone to do his job,” Cmelak said.

An echo sounded from Frank McMillen in Chapel Hill, N.C. “Now that we have enhanced our credibility with the thugs who now rule small and large countries by our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have more options. It might be useful for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to whisper in the ear of the tyrant of Syria (and others) that if they don’t allow more freedom for their citizens, and stop meddling in the affairs of their neighbors, one of our stealth bombers will take them out.”

Todd Cadle of St. Cloud, Fla., wondered if he was “the only person who thinks just maybe we can start talking to people and listening to them before we start shooting.”

My own thinking on the question of intervention draws from multiple sources. As a longtime student of international relations, I know circumstances exist in which a nation may find legal justification to intervene: if a treaty allows it; if a nation’s citizens require protection; if self-defense warrants the action; or if a state violates international law. As well, the United Nations permits collective intervention against a state that disrupts peace.

I believe in exhausting every diplomatic and economic option before resorting to military force. And, as a matter of course, the United States should use its power to spread awareness, enhance opportunity, mediate disputes, engage in sincere dialogue and otherwise lessen or forestall tensions that, left untended, could lead to military intervention.

That said, one simply cannot rule out intervention in today’s world. However, the case for intervention should be made in specific terms, with supportive, accurate, substantive evidence and intelligence, and with an unequivocal indication of the U.S. national interest. I would include humanitarian crises that compromise this nation’s founding principles.

I would routinely work through the United Nations; indeed, I would support earmarking troops for a U.N. rapid-response force. And I would push regional organizations and countries adjacent to a given crisis area to take initial responsibility for quelling problems. I would place virtually no restrictions on carrying the fight to global terrorists who seek modern society’s demise, but I would use pre-emption against other nations very sparingly — except in case of an essentially imminent attack. I would never restrict the right of the United States to act unilaterally but, again, would seldom use that approach.

The United States should not submit to an international test for military interventions but definitely to a national one. In a democracy, citizens have the right and responsibility to question, challenge and demand changes to government decisions. Decision-making about military intervention should not fall solely to the president — any president. Goals should be specific, not open-ended. I’m not talking about spelling out every step that a president intends to take or exposing planning aspects that could compromise national security. But a coherent, creative, flexible, realistic plan should be obvious.

It’s not too much for Americans to ask their government for such a comprehensive strategy when talk of military intervention enters the national conversation. In fact, they deserve no less — in North Korea, Iran or anywhere else trouble may loom.


John C. Bersia is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel and the special assistant to the president for global perspectives.