U.S. Army War College >> Strategic Studies Institute >> Publications >> Details

The Intervention Debate: Towards a Posture of Principled Judgment

Authored by Dr. John Garofano.

Other Studies by Keyword

+[use of force] +[intervention] +[homeland defense] +[exit strategy] +[iraq] +[external interests] +[humanitarian aid] +[dictator] +[Garofano]

Brief Synopsis

The author argues that American policymakers must take an approach based on "principled judgment" when deciding on the use of force. The 1990s showed the extremes of deciding when and how to use force, one of the central elements of strategy. Throughout American history, debate has raged over whether force is appropriate only in defense of the homeland and vital national interests or whether it should also be used to promote more expansive objectives like regional security and stopping humanitarian disasters in regions with few tangible U.S. interests. He concludes with a discussion of Army roles and requirements for future contingencies.

You may also be interested in the following titles:

• 
  Nigerian Unity: In the Balance

• 
  The Future of the Arab Gulf Monarchies in the Age of Uncertainties

• 
  Avoiding the Slippery Slope: Conducting Effective Interventions

• 
  Return of the Balkans: Challenges to European Integration and U.S. Disengagement

• 
  Asia-Pacific: A Strategic Assessment

• 
  The Challenge of Drug Trafficking to Democratic Governance and Human Security in West Africa

• 
  War and Insurgency in the Western Sahara

• 
  Cyber Infrastructure Protection: Vol. II

Survey: The Intervention Debate: Towards a Posture of Principled Judgment

1. How would you rate the writing and overall quality?

12345

2. Is the content relevant for influencing present and future debates?

YesNoNo Opinion

Your Comments (No URLs Allowed):

If you'd like a reply to your comments, provide your email:
(optional)

View other pubs in the following categories:

Military Strategy and Policy
Landpower Roles
Military Roles
Nation Building