The Effects of American

Military Intervention
Independent Study Unit

Andrew Hewson
Global Perspectives
Mr. Babcock
May 15, 2017
 1

Table of Contents

Preface-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
Significance -----------------------------------------------------------------------------4
Background/Religion-------------------------------------------------------------------8
Expert -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Logic of Evil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------16
Role of Control ------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Case Studies
Haiti -----------------------------------------------------------------------------23
Panama ------------------------------------------------------------------------26
Iraq ------------------------------------------------------------------------------30
International Organizations ---------------------------------------------------------33
Connections to Canada --------------------------------------------------------------37
Solutions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------40
 2

Preface
Conflict occurs worldwide and the media is regularly filled with images of such
conflict. Military intervention can serve as a solution to these conflicts if conducted
appropriately. When the United States intervenes in international conflicts, however,
more problems are created, rather than the needed solutions. Military interventionism is
defined as, the deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military
forces into the course of an existing controversy (Military Intervention). The United
States intervenes mainly for their own benefit instead of helping countries in need. If
countries intervene properly, positive changes may occur, but the United States does
not always proceed appropriately, or for the right reasons. The United States has
intervened in various international conflicts throughout history, and they continue to do
so today. If the United States is not afforded the opportunity to benefit from a specific
intervention, they simply will not intervene. This is explained by the term realpolitik,
which refers to taking action based on practicality rather than moral reasoning. Expert
Gwynne Dyer suggests that military interventionism will prove disastrous for the United
States, as their goals are impossible to achieve.

Generally, there exist many reasons, including potential benefits, for a country to
intervene. Some governments may want to promote general economic fairness, while
others may attempt to force their political views upon a country enduring conflict. Military
interventionism may also prove beneficial when countries gain resources or strategic
influence in a certain geographical region. Groups or countries often intervene under the
assumption that it will benefit them. This is known as the politics of realism or
realpolitik. The United States follows this politics of realism theory to ensure that they
will only intervene if such action will be beneficial to them.
 3

This study will attempt to explain why American military intervention has not been
successful and what can be done to solve this global issue. Military aggression is
wrong. War does not solve problems. It is a problem that creates more
problems(Jacobs). Jacobs explains that American military aggression is not a solution
to world issues and that intervention will not benefit a crisis situation but only make it
worse. Overall, military interventionism could be beneficial to countries in need if
conducted properly. However, the realpolitik of America is rooted in self interest,
creating disaster in many places experiencing American military intervention. This
study will look further at the the faults of American military interventionism and possible
solutions to limit the negative effects of interventionism.
 4

Significance

The United States has historically intervened in a diversity of countries, and this
military intervention is significant in numerous ways. When the United States intervenes
in foreign affairs, its effects are observed and felt worldwide. The US often intervenes
for purposes of self-interest, as opposed to for noble reasons. Not only does the United
States intervene for its own benefit, but in the process they produce death, chaos, and
instability. For example, the intention of American intervention in Iraq was to pursue the
economic benefits of the oil industry, however, many Iraqi civilians died in the process.
In Iraq, 15, 141 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly
caused by the US-led coalition (Iraqi Deaths from Violence 20032011). Also,
approximately 4, 802 US and coalition military deaths occurred in Iraq between 2003
and 2011 (Iraq Body Count Report). The objective of the war in Iraq was originally to
search for and attain oil, so in effect America was putting their desire for and value of oil
above human lives. Upon consideration of the number of casualties that occurred as a
result of this war, it must be noted that American military intervention is an issue that all
global citizens should be concerned about. Not only is the United States sacrificing
their military in the name of oil, as in the case of Iraq, but they are also risking the lives
of innocent people. This is only one example of the United States intervening for
immoral reasons. American military intervention is a world issue because of realpolitik,
as the United States intervenes in crises for practical and selfish reasons rather than for
moral reasons.

Not only does American intervention heighten the risk of death to many, but it is
also extremely expensive. Brown University studied the amount of money the United
States has invested in intervention efforts in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
combined, between 2001 and 2016, and determined that they spent approximately $3.6
 5

trillion dollars (Crawford). In 2015 alone, the US government spent a total of $3.7 trillion
dollars on all federal programs (Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?).
This is a clear indication of how costly, in terms of dollars, American military
intervention has proven to be in the past sixteen years. It is often difficult to understand
how the US could justify spending this amount of money on intervention, considering
they already have realpolitik goals. This simply leads to the creation of more debt for an
already heavily indebted nation such as the US.

When one of the worlds largest superpowers intervenes in foreign affairs, there
is often an unwanted trickle down effect and the impact is experienced worldwide. A
very recent example of this trickle down effect occurred when the United States bombed
a Syrian airfield in April 2017. The United States bombed the airfield as they believed
that Syrian planes took off from that airfield and dropped chemical weapons on Syrian
civilians. Russia, an ally to Syria, was notified in advance of this attack, in which
fifty-nine bombs were dropped. There were many immediate effects evident, and many
more potential long-term effects that have yet to be observed. For example, Russia, and
much of the rest of the world, understand that under President Trumps policies, the
United States does not tolerate chemical warfare. Likewise, Russia may not be as
willing to aid Syria in the use of tactics that are widely disapproved of internationally. An
additional possible impact of the intervention in Syria could be that a nation such as
North Korea will think twice before provoking South Korea or the United States into a
world war.

Another example of an American intervention in which long-term negative

consequences continue to be experienced, is that of Iraq through which Saddam
Hussein was deposed. It is improbable that a group like ISIS would have been able to
enjoy the kind of success under his (Saddam Hussein's) repressive regime that they
 6

have under the Shia-led Baghdad government(Tharoor), stated John Nixon, former CIA
agent. Nixons point was that Hussein was ruthless to any group that was not part of the
ruling Baath party and would keep tight control on rivals. This included killing many that
opposed him. To this day, ISIS remains a major threat to American security and
demonstrates the long-term impact of military intervention. Furthermore, in 2016,
Mohamad Bazzi noted that, In Beirut his (Husseins) killing heightened a sectarian
battle between Hezbollah and its Sunni and Christian rivals (Bazzi). Bazzi is suggesting
that Husseins execution instigated shockwaves outside of Iraq, into Lebanon, and
undoubtedly throughout the entire Middle East. Husseins death was a direct result of
the American led invasion of Iraq in 2003. From 1980, until Iraq invaded Kuwait in
1991, Hussein acted as an ally to the United States. This demonstrates the great
significance of American military intervention in international conflicts.

The human cost of interventionism is also of great significance. This includes not
only the wounded and dead American soldiers, but also the opposition soldiers and the
civilians of the countries in which the United States intervenes. It is a great tragedy that
civilians, including children, are killed and wounded and that families are torn apart,
never to be the same again. A group, Iraq Body Count (IBC), reports that between
2003 and 2011, there were 119, 915 civilian deaths in Iraq alone. The rate of civilian
deaths caused by US- led coalition forces has declined steadily from 2009, while the
rate caused by Iraqi state forces has increased.... (Iraqi Deaths from Violence
20032011). Here, IBC points out that from 2003 to 2009, the number of deaths
attributed to the United States led coalition was very high but then it started declining.
Later in the report, IBC states that the number of civilian deaths resulting from US
coalition forces was 32 in 2010 and 19 in 2011. Had American forces not been present,
these unnecessary civilian deaths would not have occurred. Another long term
 7

consequence of American intervention is how their actions and policies in Iraq and Syria
contributed to the radicalization and rise of ISIS (Eland).

President Obamas withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2011, and the lack
of American assistance to moderate groups fighting against Syrian President Assad
evidently contributed to ISISs rise to power. Another contribution to the growth of ISIS
was the intervention in Iraq ordered by George W. Bush in 2003. ISIS originated as an
offshoot of Al Qaeda within Iraqi territory and Al Qaeda was formed as a resistance
group against the American occupation of Iraq. The current leader of the ISIS group,
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and two of the three other men on the groups military council -
like many other ISIS fighters- were radicalized during detention in US camps during the
American occupation(Eland). Here the author explains how those in leadership in ISIS
were radicalized as a result of being detained by the US, in Iraq. Regardless of ones
belonging to a specific American party, it is clear that American intervention and policies
within Iraq and Syria have greatly contributed to the rise of ISIS.

It is of utmost importance for citizens to express their concern for the negative
impact of military intervention, particularly after considering the examples discussed.
When interventions are poorly carried out, or are for immoral purposes, the world and its
people suffer. Far too many innocent civilians and soldiers from both sides are being
killed or injured, due to such interventions. Drastic change is needed in American
military intervention, in order to reduce its widespread, negative impact.
 8

Background/ Religion
American military intervention has existed for many decades now, however the
approach taken by the United States has changed drastically over the course of its
history. The Monroe Doctrine, through the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War,
and the War on Terror, clearly demonstrate the evolving approaches to American
military intervention. Religion has also held a role in military intervention, although to a
lesser extent than politics.

The United States managed the intervention process much differently in the
1800s than they do now. In 1823, American President James Monroe established a
new foreign policy for his nation, known as the Monroe Doctrine. Three main objectives
composed this policy including (to have) separate spheres of influence for the
Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-intervention (Monroe Doctrine, 1823).
The idea was a direct break from the many European countries that tried to influence
and colonize lands in the new world and intervene anytime they deemed necessary.
Central to the Monroe Doctrine was the policy of non-intervention. The Roosevelt
Corollary of 1904, under the leadership of President Theodore Roosevelt, existed as a
polar opposite to the Monroe Doctrine. This new policy stated that the United States
would intervene as a last resort (Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904). It
was mainly intended to prevent the influence of European countries from entering the
Americas, and to further enhance the United States capacity to intervene in both North
and South America. The policy of non-intervention was also obvious in the United
States responses to both the First and Second World Wars. The First World War
began in 1914, upon which President Woodrow Wilson declared that the United States
would remain neutral. It was not until 1917 that the United States joined the war through
their support of Britain, who at the time was one of Americas closest trading partners.
Similarly, while the Second World War began in 1939, the United States did not
participate until December 8, 1941. The United States joined the fight the day after
Japanese forces bombed Pearl Harbour.
 9

Although the United States mostly pursued a policy of non-intervention until after
World War Two, there was a change to the United States foreign policy in 1947. At this
time, President Truman delivered a speech that would form the foundation of the
Truman Doctrine. Truman explained that as the British government was pulling their
fighting forces and economic aid from Turkey and Greece, he wanted the United States
to fill the void. The thought was that if Britain disregarded Turkey and Greece, the
Soviet Union would attempt to bring the two countries under its communist influence
and rule. The Truman Doctrine effectively reoriented the United States foreign policy,
away from its usual stance of withdrawal from regional conflicts not directly involving the
United States, to one of possible intervention in far away conflicts (Truman Doctrine,
1947). Post World War Two, this policy paved the way for the United States to intervene
when they felt it necessary, even though a situation may not be occurring in its
immediate region. The goal was to assist democratic countries both militarily and
financially, and to retain their original types of governance, though only when it was in
the best interest of the United States.

Upon the beginning of the Cold War, the United States approach to military
intervention was once again transformed through their participation in Proxy Wars. A
Proxy War is a conflict instigated by opposing powers who do not fight against each
other directly. Instead, they use third parties to do the fighting for them (What is a
Proxy War?). For example, the Vietnam War pitted the United States against the Soviet
Union and China, thus it is considered a Proxy War. The Soviet Union and China
financially supported Communist North Vietnam, while the United States supported
South Vietnam. Originally, this American support was solely financial, but later became
military support as well. The United States foreign policy has changed due to the
failure of Proxy Wars and their limited positive impact. This is evident in the reluctance
of the United States to send troops in 2011 to Syria during its Civil War (What is a
Proxy War?).
 10

Throughout most of the first half of the United Statess existence, it remained a
mainly isolationist state. It was not until the late 1800s that the United States became
involved internationally in the Spanish American War. The idea was that the United
States would help end Spanish colonial rule in the Americas. In the early 1900s, both
Republican and Democratic Presidents engaged Marines, mostly from the West.
Original goals included American financial gain, the promotion of regional stability, and
the support and protection of human rights worldwide.

During the Cold War, American military intervention varied, and a diversity of
tactics were employed. Instead of sending troops to various locations around the world,
the United States began using more covert operations. Instead of implementing the
battering ram tactics used by the Marines, the United States would stealthily enter
countries and complete carefully planned tasks, leaving limited evidence. These tasks
could include assassinations, or the arrests of heads of state or others in positions of
power. An example of this was the joint British and American 1953 coup detat in Iran.
The CIA and British intelligence developed and put into action a plan that overthrew the
Iranian government of Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq. The fear was that Mosaddeq
had Communist beliefs which may have led to the Soviet Unions heightened influence
in that region. Mosaddeq also wanted to take control of the Iranian oil fields from
foreign, mostly British, companies. After Mosaddeq was overthrown, Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, was reinstated as the nations leader. The Shah then
designated forty percent of the countrys oil fields to American companies (CIA-Assisted
Coup Overthrows Government of Iran). These actions demonstrate that the United
States clearly changed their tactics when intervening in foreign affairs.
 11

At times, the United States has intervened completely independently of other

nations. The 1990 Gulf War and the 1992 Somali Civil War are both examples of this
method. Often, the United States works within the United Nations (UN) to intervene
internationally. In 2001, the United States intervened in Afghanistan upon receiving
authorization from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to fight the Taliban. This
was also a reaction to the terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, who were supposedly based in
Afghanistan. Based on historical context, it seems unlikely that the United States will
stop intervening independently or in cooperation with the UN at this point in time. In
2005, as a response to the genocidal wars of the 1990s in Bosnia and Rwanda, the UN
developed an initiative known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P- A Short History).
R2P originated from the adoption of the UN World Summit Outcome document,
according to the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Responsibility to
Protect refers to the obligation of states toward their populations and toward all
populations at risk of genocide and other atrocity crimes (About R2P). These
declarations make it possible for the UN to intervene in countries where mass atrocity
crimes are being committed, or when the state is failing to protect its population.

Recently the United States has focused their resources on fighting ISIS. The
mission of ISIS is to create a unified Muslim territory to enforce its extremist beliefs
(Gladu). Days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President George W. Bush announced
the so-called War on Terror. Bush stated that Our war on terror begins with
Al-Qaeda, but does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global
reach has been found, stopped, and defeated (Amadeo). The war on terror has largely
targeted the efforts of radical Islam. This became increasingly evident through the
invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. However, a study completed by Robert
Pape and James Feldman showed a motivation for violence that is not based on
religion. Pape and Feldman tracked over two thousand suicide bombings between
 12

1980 and 2009. They discovered that almost all of these bombers were not in fact
motivated by religious factors, but rather by American intervention in the Middle East.
They further pointed out that after 9/11, the larger terrorist acts in Madrid and London
were, specifically inspired by the invasion of Iraq (Feldman).

Through this examination of the evolution of American military intervention, it is

clear that the United States has transformed from an isolationist state into a nation
eager to intervene in foreign affairs and disputes. Through Proxy Wars, covert
operations, and publicized invasions, the American military has become notorious for
performing such global interventions. The motivations for intervention change
constantly, however American self-interest remains a key feature in all American military
interventions throughout its history.
 13

Expert
There are many knowledgeable experts on the topic of American interventionism,
some who argue that intervention is beneficial and others who believe the opposite.
Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian expert who believes that American military interventionism
is largely a mistake. Dyer is an independent journalist and military expert who has
published articles in forty-five different countries and has received degrees in Canada,
the United States, and Britain. He completed his Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern
History at the University of London. There have been many documentaries, books, and
articles about war to which Dyer has contributed to greatly. Dyers opinions and
arguments regarding American military intervention will be further discussed and
examined here.

In 2014, Dyer published an article on military intervention for Common Dreams,

a non-profit, independent news centre. The article discusses how former Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was incorrect regarding the intentions of terrorist
attacks. Harper said that Canada would not be intimidated by terrorists who attempt to
instigate violence in other countries. Dyer explains that Harper had his logic backwards
when considering this issue, and that terrorist groups want Western countries to bomb
Muslim countries or, better yet, invade them (Dyer). He states that the priority of groups
like ISIS is to gain political power in Muslim countries, not Western countries. In Dyers
opinion, an effective method of gaining support and recruiting people is to be attacked
by the United States.

Between the 9/11 attacks and the year 2014, the United States spent
approximately $4.4 trillion dollars on intervention efforts. The money was invested into
anti-terrorism initiatives in nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. There has also been
an increase in the amount of Canadian money being spent on these wars. Dyer says
 14

that despite such monetary investment on anti-terrorism movements, terrorist activities

continue. He reports that since 9/11, fatalities due to terrorism are now five times higher
(Global-Terrorism-Index). Dyers point is that the United States is spending vast
amounts of money on reducing terrorism, which has proven ineffective and largely
unsuccessful. Terrorists understand the impact their actions cause and Dyer refers to
American intervention regarding these issues. The United States has intervened in
Pakistan, Africa, and Yemen, through drone strikes during this War on Terror. Such
excessive war strategies have only produced further suffering and loss. From Gwynne
Dyers article in Common Dreams,
The invasions, the drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Africa, the whole
lumbering apparatus of the global war on terrorism have not killed the terrorist
beast. They have fed it, and the beast has grown very large. 3,361 people were
killed by terrorism in 2000; 17,958 were killed by it last year. (Dyer)

Dyer suggests that American invasions and the global war on terrorism are not having
the desired impact on terrorist organizations. The American military is only giving further
publicity to terrorist groups and drawing more attention to their causes. In his article,
Dyer explains that of all the people killed by terrorists in the past several years,
approximately five percent were from developed countries. He suggests that American
interventions are actually overreactions which fuels the growth of jihadi terrorism.

Dyer states that two main strategies must be combined to help end terrorism.
The first is to have more effective policing in any given country. The complementary
strategy is to create a political process that addresses the grievances of those who
supported ... terrorism (Dyer). He reasons that anti-terrorist efforts must address and
attempt to change what these terrorist groups believe are injustices they are
experiencing.
 15

Dyer points out that in the fourteen years following 9/11, only two Canadians
were killed by terrorists (Global News). It is more likely for two Canadians to die in a car
crash than to be killed by ISIS. Dyer questions the logic of deploying troops in such
terrorist situations. He discusses how pointless American intervention is, in saying,
They (terrorists) want to come to power. And in order to come to power, they need
popular support [...] you want to radicalize the population, what better way than to get
Americans to invade? (Global News). It is obvious that Gwynne Dyer is completely
against American intervention and he makes many strong points in his interviews and
articles to support this opinion. Dyers thoughts and research regarding American
military intervention help support the basis of this study.
 16

Logic of Evil

The term logic of evil greatly connects to the global issue of American military
intervention. When thinking critically about this issue, it becomes obvious that American
intervention is an issue that the entire world should be concerned about. The United
States practices the art of deception by promising countries in need that they will assist
them in becoming independent once again. These promises do not always ring true,
however, as the United States often intervenes overseas for their own economic benefit,
self-interest, and ultimately, the attainment of power. Interventions rarely benefit the
country being helped. For example, the American military intervened in Iraq in 2003,
where they claimed they would protect Iraqi citizens from the Iraqi government that
apparently possessed weapons of mass destruction. In reality, however, the United
States intervened in order to benefit financially from the oil industry, and weapons of
mass destruction were never found in Iraqi territory. Another motivation for intervention
was to overthrow Saddam Hussein and instill Western, democratic beliefs and systems
of governance into society. This demonstrates the use of realpolitik in American foreign
policy. The general public does not understand the full story behind the Iraqi
intervention, or various other American interventions for that matter.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and
closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and
utterly dominated by foreign firms (Juhasz). Juhasz explains that oil companies from
the US and other coalition countries benefitted economically from the 2003 invasion.
The new government, put in place by the coalition, allowed oil companies from these
countries to take over Iraqs oil industry. Other American companies that supported the
Iraqi war effort also benefitted from the Iraq war. Halliburton, a major oil field
construction company worked with the American government during the war in Iraq.
 17

From 2003 to 2006, Halliburton billed the American government $17.2 billion dollars for
projects that included military base development and oil field construction (The 25 Most
Vicious Iraq War Profiteers). American Vice President Dick Cheney held a crucial role in
the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Cheney, also the former CEO of Halliburton, received a
thirty-four million dollar payout upon his resignation, in order to become George W.
Bushs running mate in 2000 (Jacobson). Blackwater, a private American security firm,
also benefitted financially from the war in Iraq, when they were hired to provide security
for the Iraqi transitional government, known as the Coalition Provisional Authority
(Gillan). As a result, Israel had one less enemy in the region to be concerned about
(Wallechinsky). While the US tried to instill democracy within Iraq, the process left a
void for others to fill, and as a result, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of ISIS, gained
primacy in many Iraqi Sunni areas while Iran-backed militias gained power in many Shia
areas (Spiliakos).

The media also plays a key role regarding American intervention. For example
the US withdrew from Somalia in 1994, earlier than expected, due to negative media
coverage. The public responded to images which depicted dead US soldiers being
dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by pressuring Congress to evacuate the
American military from Somalia (McSweeney).

Another example of the media influencing public perception is the Vietnam War.
With uncensored images of dead American soldiers on the nightly news and in the
newspapers, it was difficult for Americans to support the war effort. There were many
public protests, particularly on liberal university campuses, that demonstrated the fury of
citizens who did not support this war (Maoz). Though the media may not have forced an
early exit of US forces in Vietnam, it certainly made the war very unpopular. This
 18

sentiment escalated to the point that many Americans looked down on and judged
soldiers who returned from the Vietnam War alive .

As documented, the United States intervenes mostly for their own self-interest.
Specifically, in Iraq, America justified intervening by promising democracy and helping
the Iraqi people. This is at odds with what actually occurred as Saddam Hussein was
removed from power, too many civilians and soldiers died, and US companies
benefitted financially from the invasion. The US government benefited from this and
other interventions despite the media coverage that showed dead civilians and soldiers.
 19

Role of Control

At first glance it would appear that the United States has total control over where
they intervene and for what reasons. A Huffington Post article states that the American
government is doing exactly what the Islamist terrorists want, in its too public and
excessively profligate military overreaction to terrorist provocation (Eland). This
demonstrates how the United States consistently plays into the hands and wishes of
terrorist organizations. Eland also states that a motivating factor for the 9/11 attacks
was the American military presence in Muslim countries. After 9/11, the US declared
war on Iraq which contributed to deep destabilization in the region. This brings into
question who is truly in control - the American government or terrorist organizations.
Terrorists can bate the US into attacking, which, as we have observed earlier, assists
terrorists into further radicalization.

To determine who holds control, it may help to understand the goals of Al-Qaeda
and the US from prior to 9/11 until present day. Al-Qaeda's main political goal is to have
an "ultra-conservative interpretation of Sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim
world" (Habeck). Other goals include attacking the US, ridding the Muslim world of
Western influences, and drawing the US into a drawn out war which would be severely
economically detrimental.

The main goals of the United States for Iraqi Freedom included ending Husseins
regime, eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), capturing terrorists,
reducing terrorism, and assisting Iraq in achieving representative self-government
(Spring).
 20

It appears that Al-Qaeda and possibly ISIS may actually hold the upper hand in
achieving their goals. ISIS controls large regions of Iraq and Syria and it appears that
they have instituted their version of Sharia law. It was Al-Qaeda forces that carried out
the 9/11 terrorist attacks. American forces in the Middle East were greatly reduced
under Democrat President Obama, however the United States continues to be involved
in long and expensive wars.

The United States was not as successful at achieving their main goals for Iraqi
Freedom. Although Husseins regime was overthrown, the United States were not able
to eliminate WMDs in Iraq as they were simply never even there. The United States
did, however, help set up a representative self-government. A power vacuum was
created upon Husseins removal, which was then filled largely by Al-Qaeda, followed by
ISIS.

Although Republican President George W. Bush declared mission accomplished

on May 1, 2003, it is clear that all the US accomplished was unnecessary military and
civilian deaths, political upheaval, and the continued rise of ISIS and extremism. When
comparing Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obamas attitudes on the issues of
foreign policy, specifically American intervention, both similarities and differences are
made apparent. While Bush involved the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama
continued interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan while also intervening in Libya and
Syria. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago claims that Bush and Obama
together have, a great deal of continuity (Ellis). He added that both Presidents
prioritized regime change in the Middle East.

Barry Posen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sees great differences

between the two Presidents. Posen suggests that Obama was, at least () sensitive to
 21

many of the problems that have arisen through the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
(Ellis). He also states that Obama understands that having such a large number of
American soldiers alongside civilians in the Middle East, is in fact concerning. The
suggestion being that in these situations, both American soldiers and civilians are
unintentionally killed. Obamas thoughts on American intervention also hint at a
potential solution to this crisis.

American intervention should be classified as a world issue, as the effects of

these interventions are experienced worldwide. Experts including Chomsky and Dyer
explain how ISIS and other terrorist groups do not actually hold significant power,
however, they are able to lure the United States with senseless violence. This supports
the belief that the United States may not be taking the right approach in intervention,
and that terrorist groups have control over them.

It has also become clear that allies of the United States should be greatly
concerned about this situation. The actions of countries supporting the United States
can lead to terrorism on their home soil. The United States is often supported by other
powerful countries that also intervene in international affairs. As we have seen with the
aforementioned study on suicide bombers, the consistent motivation for terrorist attacks
is retribution for previous interventions involving the United States and its allies. The
example cited by Pape and Feldman shows that the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London
bombings were inspired by the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Both Spain and Britain were
involved in this specific invasion.

It can prove challenging to determine who has control when it comes to American
military intervention. The United States decided to invade Iraq in 2003. However this
was partly in response to the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks occurred because of the
 22

United States military presence in Muslim countries. This shows that the United States
is less in control and more reactionary than it would first appear. One can also
determine that the United States lacks control in this situation in Iraq as they did not
entirely meet their goals for the invasion but Al-Qaeda did meet their goals.
 23

Case Study - Haiti

Located on the Western side of the island of Hispaniola, is Haiti. Throughout

history, there has been a struggle for control as individuals and groups with varying
political perspectives have held power. Due to several problems, the United States
intervened in 1994 intending to improve the political situation. Their goal was to
eliminate the military junta led by Lieutenant General Raoul Cedras. In 1991, Cedras
overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide in a coup (Cockburn). The Dominican Republic
shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti. Even though Haiti and the Dominican
Republic are connected by land, they are very different countries experiencing unique
circumstances and different colonial histories. Until 1697, Spain controlled the entire
island. At that time, Spain allocated control of the Western third of Hispaniola to France.
Although the area that came to be known as Haiti was originally a rich French colony,
there were many ethnic differences as well as disagreement regarding natural resource
management. This led to frequently changing self proclaimed monarchs and dictators
(Allmeling).

Haiti has had a complex political history. From 1915 until 1934, the US occupied
Haiti, however in 1930, the US allowed Haiti to hold free elections. In 1957, Francois
Papa Doc Duvalier was elected President. In 1961, he enabled himself to become
President for the rest of his life. After his death in 1971, his son, Jean-Claude Baby
Doc Duvalier, assumed presidency. After extensive corruption, Baby Doc was forced to
flee to France in 1986, due largely to rioting crowds and pressure from the United
States. The National Council of Government led the Haitian state until President
Aristide was elected in late 1990.

Behind every American intervention there exists a much more complex and
dynamic truth that is hidden from the public. For example, the US government under
the leadership of Bill Clinton stated that they wanted to restore democracy by reinstating
 24

Jean-Bertrand Aristide. However, it appears there was more to invading Haiti than trying
to restore democracy and prevent human rights abuses. It appears that Clinton had his
reputation and internal American politics in mind when he decided to proceed with
Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti. At the time, Clinton was thought to be a weak
Commander-In-Chief, and his advisers told him that invading Haiti would help him look
strong and presidential (Girard). Clinton also wanted a positive relationship with the
Congressional Black caucus and representatives from Florida, as these two groups
would help him pass the legislation of his choice. The Black caucus and other Florida
congressmen insisted that the United States should intervene in Haiti.

This invasion is significant because it is one of the many failed interventions

during Bill Clintons presidential term. This invasion politically impacted President
Clinton and the US, as well as Haiti. For the United States, the situation did not involve
key US strategic interests. American military is trained to fight large forces and not
necessarily the Haitian army or its paramilitary group FRAPH (Front for the
Advancement and Progress of Haiti). FRAPH was involved in widespread
state-sponsored human right abuses between 1991 and 1994 (Raoul Cedras Facts).
The United States was able to get Cedras to leave in order to reinstate Aristide. Philippe
R. Girard of McNeese State University discusses the effectiveness of the United States
invasion by stating that the US Army proved much less effective when it came to
disbanding the Haitian Army, ending human rights violations, and initiating democratic
and economic reforms (Girard). For these reasons, the intervention in Haiti was
ineffective and should not have been undertaken.

This intervention was a waste of money as the United States had a limited impact
on Haitians and their country. After five years of intervening in Haiti it seems the country
was no better off than prior to the invasion, according to Jacques Richard. Richard
reported in 2000 that the country was still illiterate and gets by on less than $1 a day
(Richard). He also argues that Haitis institutions did not see improvement, as the US
 25

led intervention in Haiti has failed to lay the foundations for either Haiti's economic or
democratic development (Richard). The military junta that terrorized the people had
changed, but still only twenty-five percent of Haitians had access to safe drinking water,
and half of the Haitian children under the age of five suffered from malnutrition.

This intervention could have gone in different ways. The United States could
have chosen not to intervene at all, or they could have chosen a more effective and
sensitive plan of action. There were vast amounts of money spent on this mission,
soldiers entered combat, and the Haitian society and economy were disturbed. Before
leaving Haiti, the American military should have ensured that democratic and economic
reforms were in place to ensure the wellbeing of the people of Haiti.
 26

Case Study - Panama

Panama, located in Central America, experienced American military intervention

on December 20, 1989. President George H.W. Bush sent in troops and aircraft to
arrest Manuel Noriega on charges of drug trafficking. Noriega was the military dictator
of Panama from 1982 until 1989. Three main reasons were given to justify the
American invasion. First, that Noriega should be arrested for drug trafficking offences;
second, to protect the American soldiers who were already stationed in Panama; and
third, to prevent the suppression of democracy of the Panamanian people. However,
journalists and historians insist the real cause for war were maintaining US control of
the Panama Canal, Central America and US military bases in Panama .(Hafiz).
Hafiz explains that the US wanted to exercise strategic control of the region by
continued control of the Panama canal.

Panama was discovered in the early 1500s and was the first Spanish colony in
the Pacific region. In 1821, Panama gained independence from Spain and joined with
Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela to form the Republic of Gran Colombia. This
republic separated in 1830 and Panama continued to be part of the nation of Colombia
until 1903. In the 1850s, the United States expressed interest in constructing a canal
through Nicaragua. This plan never materialized, but in 1903 the US aided Panama in
obtaining independence from Colombia. In return, the United States gained control of
the land surrounding the Panama Canal.

The Panama Canal was an important waterway built to connect the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans. The canal allowed goods to be shipped quicker and more cheaply from
coast to coast, greatly benefiting the American economy . The canal also allowed the
United States to have easier access and control of both oceans, which was of utmost
importance during war. The Canal was a geopolitical strategy to make the United
States the most powerful nation on earth(van Wagtendonk). At the time the canal was
 27

built maritime power was all important, as there were no air forces. If you were powerful
on the oceans then you were powerful in the world. A treaty was signed in 1977, by
President Jimmy Carter, to return control of the canal to Panama by the year 2000. The
canal was returned to Panamanian control in 1999. This was not an act of goodwill,
rather, the United States no longer had use for the canal, as it was not needed for
military purposes. Since air power was becoming more common, there was less need
for the canal and navy ships and submarines proved too large for it. Rail and air were
being used more for the shipment of goods, therefore, the United States interests were
no longer being served by the canal.

On December 20, 1989, over 27, 000 American soldiers invaded Panama. At the
time of the invasion there was a large US military force stationed on eighteen military
bases in Panama. This made it very easy for the United States to attack, since their
troops were already there. The United States had military troops in Panama to protect
the canal and their control of this strategically important region. The Panama Defense
Forces were not as well trained or equipped as their US counterparts. The American
troops targeted Noriegas headquarters in Panama City, and within a week of the start
of the invasion, Physicians for Human Rights estimated that 300 civilians had been
killed and another 15,000 were made homeless (Palermo). On January 3, 1990,
Noriega surrendered and was arrested, upon which the United States withdrew from
Panama.

The United States broke both international law and their own national policies
with the invasion of Panama. A report by the Central American Human Rights
Commission stated that, most of these deaths could have been prevented had the US
troops taken appropriate measures to ensure the lives of civilians and had obeyed the
international legal norms of warfare (Peppe). Bush also broke national law, as prior to
engaging in conflict, the President must consult with Congress, which Bush failed to do
(Dam). After the invasion, the drug trade continued and poverty remained high. The
 28

Americans achieved their true goal of arresting Manuel Noriega, but they did not
improve the drug trafficking problem which they stated as their official reason for
intervening.

This intervention had a severely negative impact on Panama. One impact the
invasion had on Panama involved the American attack on Noriegas headquarters,
located near the neighbourhood of El Chorrillo. This was a poor, working class
neighbourhood which was completely obliterated by the American military. More than
20 US soldiers were killed and 300-500 Panamanian combatants died as well
(Grandin). The author describes how the US bombed a neighborhood where the people
were thought to be Noriega supporters. The US said that there were civilian deaths in
the low hundreds but grassroots human rights groups said there were thousands of
civilian deaths with many more thousands forced to leave their homes. There was so
much devastation that the bombing was nicknamed Little Hiroshima. This invasion
worsened the situation in Panama, creating further issues. From December 20, 1989 to
January 30, 1990 the United States caused further devastation on a country that was
already in need. Currently, Panama has a stable government. Professor Orlando Perez,
of Central Michigan University, states "Panama's institutional system has certainly
improved significantly since 1988. There is no question about that" (Grant). Their
democratic institutions generally have a balance of power in the different sections of
government. Panama continues to struggle with corruption and the influx of drug money
from Columbia, however, it has become an attractive location for westerners looking to
retire or vacation.

In the case of Panama, the truth about the American intervention that was not
publicly revealed was that Noriega knew too much sensitive information regarding the
United States. Therefore, they wanted him arrested. Noriega held a very close
relationship with the United States throughout his life. While attending the School of
Americas in 1967, he became a paid informant for the CIA, remaining on their payroll
 29

until February of 1988. During this time, he had been working with the CIA to set up
military assistance for rebel groups, or Contras, in Nicaragua, financed mainly through
drug trafficking. This drugs for guns plan was known by American government
agencies, however, they chose to ignore it. It was not until Noriega became a threat to
the United States that they decided to arrest him on charges of drug trafficking. As well
as being a paid informant for the CIA he had extensive knowledge about US covert
operations in the Panama region. The United States also chose to ignore Noriegas
involvement in the drug cartel. He made millions of dollars transporting cocaine from
Colombia to the United States. Government agencies were well aware of these
activities but chose not to act upon them, in order to continue a positive relationship with
Noriega for the purpose of serving American interests. Oliver North, a US Marine
Lieutenant Colonel, met secretly with Noriega in 1986, and agreed that Noriega would
carry out covert plans to disrupt Nicaragua (Engleberg). A former Central Intelligence
Agency official stated,
He can make us look terribly meddlesome, (...) He (Noriega) can expose a lot of
activities, people and places. At a minimum, it will be embarrassing and difficult.
This sort of case is bad enough when there's nothing there. It's doubly bad if, as
in this case, there is, (Engleberg)

In the case of Panama, the best strategy would have been to not intervene at all.
The United States expanded the range of their troops, destroyed Panamas natural
environment through the destruction of neighbourhoods, killed innocent civilians, and
increased the amount of homelessness in Panama. The United States used drug
trafficking charges to validate their invasion of Panama, even though they were already
aware of the illegal dealings through the course of their relationship with Noriega. It was
simply used as a justification to fulfill their agenda. Instead of intervening with purposes
of self-interest, Panama would have been better off if left alone by the United States.
 30

Case Study - Iraq

Iraq is located in the Middle East near Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Many
conflicts have arisen since 1958, upon the countrys transformation into a republic after
a coup detat. The Gulf War of 1991 was the first major conflict between the United
States and Iraq, when George H. W. Bush was the American President. The US led
coalition forced Iraq out of Kuwait after they had invaded in 1990. In 1995, the UN
allowed an oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell their oil resources in
exchange for food, a scarcity at this time. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was removed
from power in 2003, initiating a chain of events that are still being played out today.
This study will focus on and discuss the 2003 American invasion of Iraq.

Prior to the invasion, US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a case to the
United Nations to intervene in Iraq. The UN Security Council said they found no
evidence of WMDs. The United States was then questioned as to why they were so
persistent on intervening. On March 17, 2003, President George W. Bush issued an
ultimatum to President Hussein which entailed Husseins family leaving Iraq within
forty-eight hours or else they would face severe military action. Hussein and his family
refused to leave, thus the invasion began only days later.

The United States intervened in Iraq from March 20, 2003 until May 1, 2003. The
stated goal of the US in invading Iraq was to disarm Iraq of WMDs, end Husseins
regime, and free the Iraqi people of such oppression. Despite there being no definitive
proof of WMDs, the United States intervened anyway. The United Nations and Canada
did not intervene due to lack of evidence. On the day of the American invasion,
President Hussein spoke on Iraqi TV, calling the coalition's attacks "shameful crimes
against Iraq and humanity" (Saddam Addresses Iraqi People).
 31

Much of the death and destruction as a result of this war actually occurred after
the wars end. The war itself was fairly uneventful before and during the invasion of
Iraq. At the start of the invasion, members of the American militarys 507th Maintenance
Company were captured by Iraqi forces outside of the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. On April 9,
coalition forces seized Baghdad, and the United States declared that the regime had
ended. A statue honouring Saddam Hussein was then destroyed in Firdos Square. On
May 1, President Bush declared that the major part of the invasion was over but that
some soldiers would remain on Iraqi soil. In July of 2003, Hussein's sons were killed
and in December, Hussein was captured in a spider hole, which is a below ground
hideout. An overwhelming number of American soldiers were killed in Iraq, the official
number being 4,486 soldier deaths (Goodman).

Like most American invasions, there existed a hidden purpose. The real reason
they intervened in Iraq is because the United States wanted oil, and they hid this with
the idea that weapons of mass destruction existed. General John Abizaid told CNN, Of
course it's about oil; we can't really deny that (Juhasz). The United States wanted
control of the oil in Iraq and a say in where the oil was being sold. The following
describes how Hussein had attempted to dictate what would happen with Iraqi oil, which
was the opposite of what the US desired,
Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to
threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to
manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his
image as a pan-Arab leader (...) and pressure others for a lifting of economic
sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate
policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and
political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an
integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in
 32

the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a
cohesive coalition of key allies, (Ahmed).

This explains how Hussein had intended to prove his power by using the oil
strategically in favour of himself and of Iraq. This would make his regime look strong,
demonstrate his leadership abilities, and help remove sanctions against Iraq. This
contributed to the United States desire to intervene as they used the idea of WMDs as
a way to distract Americans from the true motivations for intervening.

What if the United States had never invaded Iraq? It is quite possible that the
Middle East would be experiencing much more positive circumstances than it is now. If
Hussein had never been deposed, ISIS may not have been afforded the opportunity to
gain the power it currently holds. It is also true that if the US had not intervened in 2003,
many tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, as would several thousand troops
from the coalition countries (Watkin). The United States further damaged a country
that could have had the ability to sustain themselves.

Iraq is yet another case in which the US conducted a senseless military

intervention. Instead of spending enormous amounts of money sending troops to Iraq,
the state could have donated money to organizations in Iraq dedicated to making a
legitimate difference in peoples lives. The US could have allocated resources and
technology to such organizations, had Iraq actually possessed WMDs. In most
interventions, there exist alternate solutions to military action. In the case of Iraq, the
United States should not have intervened and should have made use of alternative
action.
 33

International Organizations

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) are countries that organize into groups

and have common interests in an issue(s). An example of an IGO would be the United
Nations. Others include Interpol, the Worlds Largest Police Organization, and the
North American Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO describes their goal as to
Safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military
means (What is NATO?).

Various IGOs have been involved in American military interventions in the past
few decades. In 2013, ministers from the IGO, Arab League, asked the United Nations
to take action against Syria over its possible use of chemical weapons. A statement by
Arab League foreign ministers read, The United Nations and international community
are called upon to assume their responsibilities in line with the UN Charter and
international law by taking the necessary deterrent measures (Arab League Discusses
Syria Crisis). They called for action as they believed that the forces of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad, carried out a chemical weapon attack against his own people. The
Arab League suspended Syria from the group in 2011 when Assads government did
not follow an Arab peace plan intended to end violence in Syria. During this time,
Saudi Arabia and the Syrian opposition pleaded with league members to back a United
States military strike on the regime (Arab League Urges UN-backed Action in Syria).
There was clearly a difference in opinion at the time among Arab League nations.
Countries including Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon said they were against foreign military
intervention.

While there was no direct American intervention in Syria when the conflict began,
it was widely suspected that the United States encouraged its allies to intervene. The
Obama administration is not comfortable being directly involved (in Syria) but has
clearly given the green light to Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to intervene,(Meuse). If
 34

Bashar Al Assad were to use chemical weapons against his own people, the United
States said they would intervene. At this time, Obama approved the interventions of
Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia in Syria. Obama did not want to involve the US
directly in Syria but made it clear that he had no problem with other countries in the
region going to Syria.
When connecting American intervention and IGOs, it is evident that the United
States have several options for participation. The United States can be part of an IGO
such as NATO, and use its influence to encourage intervention. The United States can
also try to build a coalition of countries to intervene in nations such as Iraq. Another
option of the US is independent intervention, the invasion of Panama being a prime
example of such.

The World Bank describes non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, as

private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of
the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake
community development (Shah).

Many believe that because NGOs can be supported by the government and
corporate funds, they become part of the intervening force. NGOs such as Medecins
Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, operate in dangerous locations such as
Libya. In early 2011, when insurgents were fighting against Muammar Gaddafi's troops,
Medecins Sans Frontieres had to withdraw from the country and their only option was to
send medical supplies without their doctors. With the United States and other countries
intervening in Libya as part of NATO, Medecins Sans Frontieres was able to continue
operations in Eastern Libya where there had been NATO military intervention. In
Western Libya, however, it was much too dangerous for Medecins Sans Frontieres to
effectively continue operating. In this way, American interventionism actually positively
helped the humanitarian cause.
 35

Another example of American intervention helping NGOs gain strength and

benefitting a country is that of Iraq. Civic Freedom Monitor says, Following the United
States invasion of Iraq in 2003, the country witnessed a major opening up of civic
space, as thousands of new Iraqi non governmental organizations were established
(Civic Freedom Monitor: Iraq). Civic Freedom Monitor explains that initially, NGOs
functioned to aid in matters of humanitarianism and disaster relief. NGOs soon evolved
into taking action in human rights and democratic development crises, which also
included elections and constitutional reform. Regardless of the United States true
intentions in invading Iraq, the United States was able to help pave the way to
democratic reform, typically one of their stated goals when intervening abroad.

When the United Nations expresses interest in intervention, the United Nations
Security Council may or may not approve the suggested intervention. However, there
are five permanent members the UN Security Council that can veto a resolution to
intervene (Council on Foreign Relations). The United Nations can intervene if the
organization sees threats to international peace and security (International Peace and
Security). In the case of Somalia in 1991, the United Nations began intervention by
authorizing a group of five hundred peacekeepers to monitor the ceasefire in the
capital, to provide security to aid convoys, and to guard the food depots (Golebiewski).

Despite the five hundred peacekeepers in Somalia, the situation only worsened.
This prompted the United States to ask the United Nations if they could lead a
multinational group of countries in Somalia to establish a safe environment for
humanitarian relief operations. This was called Operation Restore Hope. The operation
was mandated to use military action if needed.

Another method of American military intervention is through the use of for-profit

organizations. In Iraq, the US used the military contractor Blackwater which supplies
highly trained soldiers for hire. One of their jobs was to protect US State Department
 36

officials. In Iraq in 2007, there were approximately 160, 000 Blackwater personnel on
the ground, roughly the same number of American troops in Iraq at this time (Singer).
These private contractors are extremely expensive, as in 12 years of war, Blackwater
received $569 million in contracts, or 31.9% of the Pentagons $1.8 billion Drug
Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities Fund for Afghanistan (Shorrock).

On the topic of American military intervention, many IGOs and NGOs are
available to participate. As discussed earlier, both types of organizations have been
utilized, and in many cases, specific organizations have assisted American interventions
multiple times. The United States are also involved in many organizations including
NATO and the United Nations, where they collectively intervene.
 37

Canadian Connection

Although the United States is keen on intervening, Canada is not. However,

Canada will intervene when necessary. Canada has at times, joined interventions in
cooperation with the United Nations and NATO in various manners. Canada decides
independently whether or not to join their closest ally, the United States, during global
interventions.

Canadas greatest ally and the nation they are closest to economically, socially,
culturally, and geographically is the United States. Regarding military intervention,
however, Canada and the United States are very different. Canada is traditionally
regarded as a peacekeeping nation, while the United States is more interventionist.
Canada often supports the US, but does not always agree on issues regarding
international intervention.

Just a few weeks after 9/11, on Oct 7, 2001, the United States and the United
Kingdom launched Operation Enduring Freedom to dismantle the Al-Qaeda terrorist
network in Afghanistan and to remove the Taliban regime from power (The Canadian
Armed Forces Legacy in Afghanistan). On Oct 8, 2001 Canada supported a NATO
mission in Afghanistan, sanctioned by the UN. The purpose was to help the
government of Afghanistan assume responsibility for security, governance, and
development, and to help the Afghan people rebuild their nation as a stable, democratic,
self sufficient society (The Canadian Armed Forces Legacy in Afghanistan). Although
Canada did not intervene in Afghanistan with the US, Canada was involved as part of
the NATO mission to help Afghanistan.

Canada, however, did not intervene in Iraq in 2003 with the United States.
Canada did not believe in the reasons that the US used to justify this invasion. The
United States believed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction and used this idea to
 38

justify intervention. Liberal Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, did not send
Canadian troops to intervene, because at this time, no evidence was presented to prove
the presence of weapons of mass destruction. In this case, Canada made the right
decision, as such weapons were never found. Canada was willing to do the right thing
despite internal and external pressures. This demonstrates the great independence of
Canada, specifically regarding foreign affairs.

Political influence is also greatly significant when Canada intervenes in foreign

affairs. Under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada committed combat
troops as military advisers in Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS. Under Liberal
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, however, the number of Canadian troops has greatly
declined in both Iraq and Syria. Under Trudeau, Canada is more interested in
peacekeeping, as well as the training and support of a country's troops. The safety of
civilians is prioritized over combat with these nations. Upon the removal of Canadian
fighter jets, Trudeau stated that, We will be supporting and empowering local forces to
take their fight directly to [ the Islamic State] (Zilio).

A Canadian connection that paved the way for Canadas role as a peacekeeping
nation occurred in 1956 in Egypt. Egypt forcefully took control of the Suez Canal from
the French and British, over an investment dispute. France and Britain, along with
Israel, then attacked Egypt. Egypt sought assistance from the Soviet Union and as a
result, the Soviet leader threatened to shower the West with nuclear weapons if the
British and French didnt withdraw (Suez Canal Crisis). A very serious situation was
averted when Canadian External Affairs Minister, Lester B. Pearson, devised a solution.
Pearson suggested that the French and British withdraw but would allow for a United
Nations force to remain in the area, stabilizing the situation (Suez Canal Crisis). This
became the first large peacekeeping force sanctioned by the UN, and Pearson was
awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for this solution. Pearson then became Canadas Prime
Minister in 1963.
 39

Evidently, Canada has made significant contributions to global peacekeeping

efforts, a legacy that continues to this day. Canada often acts independently and has
historically been known to contribute to American military interventions only when
deemed appropriate and necessary.
 40

Solutions

There are many different ways that the United States could be approaching
intervention. Despite being mostly isolationist throughout their history, the United States
became an interventionist country during the Cold War. This was due to the Truman
Doctrine of 1947 in which President Truman wanted to negate Communist Soviet
influence worldwide. At this time, the US was concerned that Turkey was being
influenced by the Soviet Union. The solutions discussed below serve as alternatives to
military intervention, and methods which the United States can adapt to make
intervention more effective.

The United States intervenes militarily far too often, however, they do rely on
political and diplomatic pressure before resorting to violence or force. The United
States could choose to assist through the donation of humanitarian supplies and
technology to countries that are in need. This could be completed independently, or
through organizations such as the UN.

Since it seems that the United States will not cease to intervene in foreign affairs
anytime soon, the UN should be able to sanction any intervention. In this way, the UN
Security Council would be required to approve American interventions, meaning there
would truly be a global mandate. China, and especially Russia, tend to veto
interventions, so requiring the approval of the Security Council would give nations the
moral authority to become involved in interventions. A UN committee, named,
Open-Ended Working Group on the question of Equitable Representation on and
Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matter related to the
Security Council, is currently working to shape the future of the Security Council. Their
mandate is to have the Council reflect global contemporary geopolitical realities, have a
more representative and democratic council, and have a membership with more
 41

regional powers (Nadin). This is one way that the United Nations and its security council
could be more effective.

There are other possibilities for changing the way the Unites States intervenes.
There exists the possibility of changing Americas mindset when it comes to
intervention. Foreigners need to more clearly understand that the US are rather
deceitful in their foreign policy. The United States suggest noble goals for intervening,
but truly intervene based on reasons of self-interest. Keck says, the American public
believes that the US acts based on its moral principles, however, this is rarely the case,
as his research paper has demonstrated (Keck). It would be beneficial for Americans to
understand just how damaging their countrys interventions truly are, not only in the
country being invaded, but the repercussions experienced worldwide. Similar to the
issue of climate change, with the issue of US interventionism, education is required
regarding the problems caused by American military intervention. This requires active
grassroots leaders to further publicize the devastating impact of intervention.

Also, Gwynne Dyer suggests that in a given country better policing would help
and that political process that addresses the grievances of those who support terrorism
would surely help. Adding to this, President Obama identified that fewer US troops in
crisis zones would mean less civilian deaths in those countries.

A different way to deal with interventions would be to have Responsibility to

Protect (R2P) as the criteria for allowing intervention to occur. Countries like the United
States would only be allowed to intervene when a state fails to protect its people -
either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness - (as) the responsibility shifts to the
broader international community (Prevent Genocide). This report to the General
Assembly of the UN was delivered by Canada in 2001. The General Assembly
approved the idea of R2P, including the Security Council in 2006 (R2P A Short
 42

History). If countries agree to R2P, it could be used to determine if future interventions

should be permitted to proceed.

Regarding American military intervention, there remains an extensive process to

repairing the damages caused by such, and improvements must be made to prevent
further devastation. Making the aforementioned changes would be an excellent start,
however this is a global issue that cannot be resolved overnight. Another way of
eliminating the negative impact of American intervention, is for the United States to
return to their isolationist ways and cease military intervention completely.
 43

Bibliography
"About R2P." n.d. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.
http://www.globalr2p.org/about_r2p. 26 03 2017.
Ahmed, Nafeez. "Iraq Invasion was About Oil." 20 03 2014. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-
resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy. 13 05 2017.
Allmeling, Anne. "D W Made for Minds." 02 12 2013. Haiti and the Dominican Republic:
One island, two worlds.
http://www.dw.com/en/haiti-and-the-dominican-republic-one-island-two-worlds/a-
16593022. 02 05 2017.
Amadeo, Kimberly. "War on Terror Facts, Costs and Timeline." 02 03 2017. The
Balance.
https://www.thebalance.com/war-on-terror-facts-costs-timeline-3306300. 2017 05
05.
"Arab League Discusses Syria Crisis." 01 09 2013. Aljazeera.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013831225922651174.html
. 10 05 2017.
"Arab League Urges UN-backed Action in Syria." 02 09 2013. Aljazeera.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139118235327617.html.
02 04 2017.
Bazzi, Mohamad. " How Saddam Husseins Execution Contributed to the Rise of
Sectarianism in the Middle East." 15 01 2015. The Nation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-saddam-husseins-execution-contributed-t
o-the-rise-of-sectarianism-in-the-middle-east/. 04 05 2017.
"CIA-Assisted Coup Overthrows Government of Iran." n.d. History.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-governm
ent-of-iran. 03 05 2017.
"Civic Freedom Monitor: Iraq." 04 01 2017. The International Center for Non-Profit-Law.
http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/iraq.html. 10 05 2017.
 44

Cockburn, Patrick. "Haiti's junta gives in: 2.30am news: Carter wins deal to restore
Aristide just in time to halt US attack." 19 09 1994. Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/haitis-junta-gives-in-230am-news-carter-wins
-deal-to-restore-aristide-just-in-time-to-halt-us-attack-1449639.html?amp. 04 05
2017.
Crawford, Neta C. "Costs of War." 09 2016. Watson Institute.
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20
War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf. 02 04 2017.
Dam, Rodolfo. Legality of the 1998 Panama Invasion and the Responsibility to Protect
Doctrine. n.d.
http://postgraduate.ias.unu.edu/upp/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/6_Dam_article.
pdf. 08 05 2017.
Dyer, Gwynne. "How Western Intervention Fuels 'Terrorism'." 28 10 2014. Common
Dreams.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/28/how-western-intervention-fuel
s-terrorism. 03 04 2017.
Eland, Ivan. "Blowback from Further U.S. Intervention in Iraq." n.d. Huffpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/blowback-from-further-us_b_5668692.
html. 04 05 2017.
"Scorecard on U.S. Interventionism." n.d. The World Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/scorecard-on-us-intervent_b_7965962.
html. 27 02 2017.
Ellis, Ted. "Grand Strategy: George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama." 21 01 2017. The
National Interest.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/grand-strategy-george-w-bush-vs-bar
ack-obama-19109. 04 05 2017.
Engleberg, Stephen. "The Noriega Case: Intelligence Operations; U.S. Worry: What
Damage Can Noriega Do?" 06 01 1990. New York Times.
 45

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/06/us/the-noriega-case-intelligence-operations-
us-worry-what-damage-can-noriega-do.html?pagewanted=all. 08 05 2017.
Feldman, Robert A. Pape and James K. Cutting the Fuse. n.d.
http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/645605.html. 05 05 2017.
Gillan, Audrey. "Blackwater: private US security firm mired in Iraq controversy." 29 011
2009. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/29/blackwater-iraq-security-contract
or. 30 04 2017.
Girard, Philippe R. "Peacekeeping, Politics, and the 1994 US Intervention in Haiti."
Summer 2004. The Journal of Conflict Studies.
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/290/461. 02 04 2017.
Gladu, Alex. "What Is ISIS' Goal? The Terrorist Group Poses An Extreme Threat To
The World." 18 11 2015. Bustle.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/124599-what-is-isis-goal-the-terrorist-group-pose
s-an-extreme-threat-to-the-world. 02 04 2017.
Global News. "Stop bombing ISIS, support Assad: Canadian military expert." 15 11
2015. Global News.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2311715/stop-bombing-isis-support-assad-canadian-m
ilitary-expert/. 28 02 2017.
"Global Terrorism Index." 2015. Institute for Economics and Peace.
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Ind
ex-2015.pdf. 03 04 2017.
Golbeiwski, Daniel. "The Humanitarian Interventions of the UN." 25 08 2013. The
Politic. http://thepolitic.org/the-security-councils-humanitarian-intervention/. 02 04
2017.
Good, Chris. "President Obama's 'Red Line': What He Actually Said About Syria and
Chemical Weapons." 26 08 2013. ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obamas-red-line-what-he
-actually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/. 12 05 2017.
 46

Goodman, H. A. "4,486 American Soldiers Have Died in Iraq. President Obama Is

Continuing a Pointless and Deadly Quagmire." 17 11 2014. Huffpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/4486-american-soldiers-ha_b_5834
592.html. 13 05 2017.
Grandin, Greg. "How Our 1989 Invasion of Panama Explains the Current US Foreign
Policy Mess." 23 12 2014. Mother Jones.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/our-forgotten-invasion-panama-key
-understanding-us-foreign-policy-today. 28 02 2017.
Grant, Will. "Has Panama Weaned Itself off Drugs and Cleaned Up?" 03 08 2004. BBC
News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-27945558. 02 05 2017.
Habeck, Mary. "What Doe Al Qaeda Want?" 12 03 2012. Foreign Policy.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/06/what-does-al-qaeda-want/. 27 03 2017.
Hafiz, Jihan. "The Panama Deception." 21 12 2010. RT Question More.
https://www.rt.com/usa/usa-panama-invasion-media-anniversary/. 27 02 2017.
"History of Haiti." n.d. One World Nation Online.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/History/Haiti-history.htm. 03 05 2017.
"Iraq Body Count Report." n.d. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/03/iraq-body-count-report-
data. 14 05 2017.
"Iraqi Deaths from Violence 20032011." 02 01 2012. Iraq Body Count.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/. 29 03 2017.
Jacobs, Ron. "Military Intervention is a Problem That Creates More Problems." 05 09
2015. Dissident Voice.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/military-intervention-is-a-problem-that-creates-
more-problems/. 05 03 2017.
Jacobson, Louis. "Chris Matthews says Cheney got $34 Million Payday from
Halliburton." 24 05 2010. Politifact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/24/chris-matthews/c
hris-matthews-says-cheney-got-34-million-payday-h/. 30 04 2017.
 47

Juhasz, Antonia. "Why the War in Iraq was Fought for Big Oil." 15 04 2013. CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/. 30 04 2017.
Keck, Zachary. "The Realpolitik of the American People." 14 12 2013. The Diplomat.
http://thediplomat.com/2013/09/the-realpolitik-of-the-american-people/. 12 05
2017.
Lucas, James A. "US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 Victim Nations
Since World War II." 11 2015. Global Research .
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-vict
im-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051. 28 02 2017.
Maoz, Jason. "Did Protesters Really Stop the Vietnam War?" 02 06 1995. The New
York Times Opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/02/opinion/l-did-protesters-really-stop-the-vietna
m-war-004278.html. 06 05 2017.
McSweeney, Daniel. "The CNN Effect and Somalia." 11 08 2011. E-International
Relations Students. http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/11/the-cnn-effect-and-somalia/.
06 05 2017.
Meuse, Alison Tahmizian. "Syria Deeply Asks: Why Did NATO Intervene in Libya, and
Not in Syria?" 22 03 2013. News Deeply.
https://www.newsdeeply.com/syria/articles/2013/03/22/syria-deeply-asks-why-did
-nato-intervene-in-libya-and-not-in-syria. 02 04 2017.
Military Intervention. n.d. www.thefreedictionary.com/military+intervention. 04 03 2017.
Modarressy-Tehrani, Caroline. "Why Does the U.S. Keep Getting Involved in Conflict?"
14 10 2014. The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-tehrani/why-does-the-us-keep-getting-inv
olved_b_5666898.html. 04 03 2017.
"Monroe Doctrine, 1823." n.d. Office of the Historian.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe. 03 05 2017.
Nadin, Peter. "United Nations Security Council Reform." 01 05 2014. Our World .
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/united-nations-security-council-reform. 12 05 2017.
 48

Palermo, Joseph A. "The 25th Anniversary of the U.S. Invasion of Panama." 18 02

2015. The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/us-invasion-of-panama_b_6356
232.html. 04 03 2017.
Peppe, Matt. "The Invasion Of Panama." 14 12 2014. counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/15/the-invasion-of-panama/. 28 02 2017.
"Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?" 04 03 2016. Center on Budget
and Policies Priorities.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-
tax-dollars-go. 01 03 2017.
"Prevent Genocide." n.d. Un.org.
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml. 12
05 2017.
"R2P A Short History." n.d. UNRIC.
http://www.unric.org/en/responsibility-to-protect/26981-r2p-a-short-history. 11 05 2011.
"Raoul Cedras." 25 10 2012. Trial International.
https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/raoul-cedras/. 02 04 2017.
"Revolutionary Front for Haitian Advancement and Progress (FRAPH)." n.d. Global
Security.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/haiti/fraph.htm. 02 04
2017.
Richard, Jacques. "US Occupation Force Evacuates Haiti, Leaving a Country in Ruins."
17 02 2007. World Socialist Website.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/hait-f17.html. 02 04 2017.
"Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904." n.d. Office of the Historian.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/roosevelt-and-monroe-doctrine.
03 05 2017.
"Saddam Addresses Iraqi People." 30 03 2003. CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/irq.war.saddam.transcript/. 13
05 2017.
 49

Shah, Anup. "Iraq Crisis." 1 08 2007. Global Issues.

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/104/iraq-crisis. 02 03 2017.
Shorrock, Tim. "Blackwater: One of the Pentagon's Top Contractors for Afghanistan
Training." 31 03 2015. The Nation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-still-top-pentagon-contractor-afghan
istan-training/. 11 05 2017.
Spiliakos, Pete. "What Have We Learned From The Iraq War?" 11 06 2015. First
Things. Wallechinsky. 30 04 2017.
Spring, Barker. "Operation Iraqi Freedom: Military Objectives Met." 18 04 2003. The
Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/report/operation-iraqi-freedom-military-object
ives-met. 06 05 2017.
"Suez Canal Crisis." n.d. CBC.
http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP15CH1PA3LE.html. 11 05 2017.
Tharoor, Ishaan. "Saddam Hussein should have been left to run Iraq, says CIA officer
who interrogated him." 16 12 2016. Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/16/saddam-huss
ein-should-have-been-left-to-run-iraq-says-cia-officer-who-interrogated-him/?utm
_term=.6f8fe4fbe60b. 02 04 2017.
"The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers." 22 07 2008. Business Pundit.
http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/2/. 30 04
2017.
"The Canadian Armed Forces Legacy in Afghanistan." n.d. National Defence and The
Canadian Armed Forces.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-past/cafla.page. 01 04 2017.
"The Truman Doctrine, 1947." n.d. Office of the Historian.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/truman-doctrine. 28 03 2017.
 50

Tran, Mark. "Manuel Noriega - From US Friend to Foe." 27 04 2010. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe. 26 02
2017.
van Wagtendonik, Anya . "How the Panama Canal Helped Make the U.S. a world
power." 15 08 2014. PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/panama-canal-helped-make-u-s-world-po
wer/. 27 02 2017.
Wallechinsky, David. "What Is the Real Reason George Bush Invaded Iraq?" 25 03
2011. Huffpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/what-is-the-real-reason-g_b_1
1116.html. 30 04 2017.
Watkin, Tim. "If Iraq Hadn't Happened?" 05 11 2007. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/05/ifiraqhadnthappened.
13 05 2017.
"What is a Proxy War?" 18 05 2014. Vietnam War. http://thevietnamwar.info/proxy-war/.
05 05 2017.
"What is Nato?" n.d. NATO. http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html. 10 05 2017.
Zenko, Micah. "The Slippery Slope of U.S. Intervention." 12 08 2014. Foreign Policy.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/12/the-slippery-slope-of-u-s-intervention/. 28 02
2017.
Zilio, Michelle. "Canada to pull fighter jets, triple training in mission against Islamic
State." 08 02 2016. Globe and Mail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-fighter-jets-to-pull-out-of
-fight-against-islamic-state-on-feb-22/article28644422/. 11 05 2017.