Military Intervention Argument Analysis

My main argument is that, while the U.S. has a responsibility to protect, it must not take rash action when it comes to launching a military intervention into another country. I argue that since human rights are a modern construct, and a nebulous one at that, they should not be used to justify an ill-advised campaign (particularly a unilateral one). I argue that first the U.S. must make every effort to prevent the occurrence of genocide through diplomatic and economic tools. I then argue that in order for a military intervention to take place, the U.S. must have an internal partner and would preferably have a multilateral coalition. I go on to assert that intervention must be logistically possible as well as hold domestic support. Finally, …show more content…
I would like to include a paragraph on why examples of past military interventions should stop anyone from being too idealistic about their effectiveness. I feel that it would set up my argument nicely and lend credence to the fact I have lots of requirements that must be meet prior to intervention. I would also like to include more about the three underlying values I had in mind when writing this paper: human life, sovereignty, and stability. I think that explaining my rational for attempting to balance these values would frame my argument in a clearer way for the reader. I feel like I argued my contentions in my body paragraphs (pre-, during, and post-genocide policy guidelines) best. I felt most comfortable writing those parts as the language and process of explaining an international relations policy recommendation is fairly familiar to me. I worry that I made my argument regarding implications of human rights theory on the responsibility to protect in an unclear way. I feel like it’s almost shoehorned into the rest of my paper, as I can make the argument that rash action is unwise in a far more concise way without brining human rights into the