when should the military be deployed? is military force justified when national security is not threatened?

Answer 1

Our national security was threatened.Are you just waking up from a coma,we where attacked on 9-11-01.

Answer 2

Iraq has shown that there were tens of thousands of terrorists out there.
Do you think that one day, some iraqis just started blowing stuff up without any previous knowledge?
Compare them with other well established terrorists, such as the 60 year old hezbolah. They have even less effectiveness than these supposedly new "recruits" in iraq. There is no way that the people we are fighting in iraq are new blood.
My friends who have been to iraq say the average insurgent was in his mid 30's, was educated, and had been in previous wars.
This war is justified, because sooner or later, those terrorists were going to attack us. can you imagine what it would be like if 1000 insurgents attacked at once throughout the US? they would be able to kill tens of thousand easily.

Answer 3

Only when necessary. However, the branches of the armed forces do get stationed all over the U.S. even in peace-time. That is a given and has been since WWI. However, in peace-time, it does give the military a chance to see different parts of the world so they are not always at home. Many men who enter, depending on their specialty that they choose, go to different places at different times. They stay for a year, then go somewhere else.

Right now, it is very justified.

Answer 4

Theres two parts to this question.
First the direct threat portion.
We need to respond to threats against our national interest yes.

But we must also take action, if need be, to those that threaten global stability.

Why we shifted to IRAQ when Afganistan was the clear threat was uncalled for.

However, the way the president manipulated things saying IRAQ was such a strong threat, was justified in the manner he posed his argue,ment. For the sake of the world security --as bush made it appear -- we had to take action.
But, as we all know, that was manipulated, and thats where its shown we do not belong in that region. In hindsight, its an unjustified war, plain and simple.

Answer 5

The correspondent above me is so inept his answer should be removed.

Thorough the natural coarse of humanity it would be impossible to find a nation-state that only used their military when it saved their national security. Every industrialized nation worth noting has used their military as an element of statecraft.

To remove our troops from Iraq would be to give the terrorists safe haven in one of the most strategic regions of the world; indeed the most strategic. As soon as we left we'd have to go back to fight them for an attack that was planned in that country instead of Afghanistan.

No, to answer your question. It is honorable to use the military when it isn't protecting your national security, if it is alleviating pain and suffering on a people brought about by a brutal regime as an example. Nothing tangible can be gained other than the good feeling of helping people who needed it; in this case it is even more honorable than using force to save yourself; it is most similar to charity.

Answer 6

it is up to the president. national security is always threatened everyday. We live in a world full of danger. Also the military is deployed in disaster efforts as well.

Answer 7

very nicely, you asked for spin so right here that's. It feels like those generals (and different vets and vet communities) do unlike conflict and infantrymen being killed (opposite to what maximum human beings think of roughly militia workers). And it additionally feels like they do unlike foreign places dependence on oil the two. foreign places oil dependence ability on occasion you're able to combat for oil, on occasion oil money gets into the palms of terrorists and none of that's sturdy for militia workers (between others, i.e. nationwide protection). particular, they throw in the term climate exchange because of the fact they could considering the fact that that's the popular rationalization for lowering carbon utilization. yet like i've got mentioned one thousand circumstances, some human beings like the assumption of carbon help regardless if the international temperatures bypass up, down or sideways. those adult men like the assumption of no longer giving trillions of greenbacks to middle East international places (and the damaging repercussions that bypass alongside with that). truthfully, that's a particularly sturdy element. If all people reads that article as help for the technological information of CO2 inflicting disasterous warming, then they are greater valuable at spinning than I. particular, that is fullyyt my perspective and totally hypothesis. I truthfully have my grandfather who became into killed in WWII to thank for permitting me to stay in a society the place i can brazenly speculate devoid of outrage of arrest or worse. Edit: i'm going to could perform a little digging into the Trueman nationwide protection venture. My preliminary impact is they seem to be a Liberal front group. (particular, hypothesis lower back, provide me it sluggish.)

Answer 8

Military should be deployed if there is a clear and present danger to the country. Thus, the soldiers must be withdrawn from Iraq because it is no longer a threat to the US.

Answer 9

no millitary force is offensive when the force is used to attack someone whom did not attack you (EG Iraq), now on the other hand it is defensive when someone has attacked you(EG Afghanistan and Al-Quieda).

this is why the Iraq war is wrong , and the Afghani war against al-quieda (who were directley responsible for 15 seprate attacks on america starting from somalia in 1992) is correct.

Answer 10

I guess that depends on what you think is a threat to national security.

You TRULY BELIEVE that a mad-man is trying to get his dirty little hands on nuclear weapons and you know that that mad-man is an enemy of the United States. Do you consider that a threat?
.