Definition:

The use of combat troops to help end the fighting in an intense and violent conflict.

Users:

States concerned about an escalating, violent conflict and anyone concerned about states' interventions in such conflicts.

Description:

A generation ago, the terms "military intervention" and "conflict resolution" would rarely have been uttered in the same breath. The field of conflict resolution has its roots in the peace movements of the 20th century, most of which were non-violent. Militaries have often intervened in the domestic affairs of other countries, but seldom have they done so in an attempt to end a difficult conflict -- until recently.

Until the last decade or so, military force was used most often to achieve a state's geopolitical goals. It was rare for states or international organizations to use force for "humanitarian" purposes. Even less common was the use of armed forces in operations that were intended to permanently resolve a conflict. At most, lightly-armed troops were used in peacekeeping operations once a ceasefire had already been reached.

Since the close of the Cold War, military intervention for humanitarian ends and conflict resolution has increased dramatically. This includes the controversial use of combat troops to help end the fighting in a difficult conflict. So, why does military intervention occur in some cases but not others? First, intervention by outside forces is ruled out when one of the world's major powers opposes such intervention. Second, in order to intervene, the major powers -- whose military resources are almost always needed -- have to agree either that there are overwhelming humanitarian needs or that intervention is necessary to protect their own interests. Finally, the potential interveners have to conclude that their intervention is likely to succeed. 

Success, of course, is relative. Most interventions, however, have at least one common goal -- ending the short-term crisis. There is a question about whether an intervention can be turned into an operation that can later lead to stable peace. That is especially problematic when the intervention involves outsiders coming in to promote the interests of the weaker side of a conflict.

Examples:

NATO troops intervened in both Bosnia and Kosovo and ended the violence and "ethnic cleansing" in those two conflicts. While some people questioned the ethics and/or efficacy of this intervention, it had stronger support, and appears to have been more successful than the unilateral U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003, which was supported by few outside the United States, and was opposed by many in the U.S. as well.

Applications:

This is an aspect of onflict that average citizens can contribute little to directly. That said, there does need to be a debate about what intervention policy should be in the countries that provide the most foreign aid and that also provide the most troops for military intervention. There can be no military intervention unless states commit their troops. On another level, what states can do and should do is anything but obvious.

One of the consequences of the rapid and sweeping change in the concepts of sovereignty and human rights is that the handful of major powers have all had a hard time determining what their role should be in dealing with violent, human rights-threatening conflicts. It is probably the case that the greatest potential for using military force as part of the resolution of difficult conflicts lies at the international level. When a single state like the United States intervenes, it invariably is accused of pursuing its own parochial or selfish interests. On the other hand, if the intervention is authorized by the United Nations and involves a multinational force, it has more legitimacy.

Links to Related Articles: