Browse our Free Essay examples and check out our Writing tools to get your assignments done.
Essay on where “things went
wrong” or where an intended action generated an unintended consequence. The
topic should reflect the concerns of ‘development’, broadly understood.
OUTLINE. Include 5 main labeled section in the
paper
Respond to the following assignment
requirements:
-I. Provide an appropriate
introduction of the event you have chosen. Your introduction must specify what
your overarching argument is on the subject and how you will develop your
argument in the paper. This should take the basic form of ‘I argue X about ....
I argue this by exploring ... A, B, C (your main sections of the paper).
-II. Your first main section
should describe in necessary detail what the event is about.
•
What is the event and what are the details of the problem being addressed?
•
Who are the people involved in making decisions?
•
What are the decision making process?
•
What is the context of the organization, group, individual, etc. around the
event and the decisions being made?
-III. Your second main
section should provide a critical analysis of the event’s failure, which must
include the following:
•
What made the decision or policy fail and why? Put otherwise, in retrospect,
what went wrong with the planning and decision process?
•
What were its unintended consequences and why? ** NOTE: This section should comprise the major part of paper.
-IV. Your third main section
must discuss how the failure or unintended consequences might have been
prevented, which must include some consideration of the following:
•
How might the actors involved prevented or anticipated the failure or
unintended consequence?
•
What social, political, or economic structures might need to be changed to
enable the event to be successful?
V. Wrap up your paper with a
brief conclusion that summarizes your key points.
MILITARY
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State
The Date
Military Humanitarian Intervention in
Libya
Introduction
In February 2011, as a reaction to Muammar Gaddafi
rule attacking civilians, the United Nations (UN) sanctioned a military
intervention in Libya to safeguard innocent lives. By March 2011, under
Operation Unified Protector (OUP), allied forces to NATO initiated an arms
embargo, naval blockade and maintained a no-fly zone. Western countries supported
these actions because the intervention emphasized altruistic purposes that
involved the removal of the tyrannical government. With a ten vote rule, the
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) ratified a military engagement into
Libya. Some countries, such Germany, China and Russia opposed Alliance
intervention and supported a non-military resolution. Critics faulted Resolution
1973 because the intended action to protect lives resulted in unintended
consequences. The response had some positive effects; however, Libya found
itself in a humanitarian crisis. I argue that international aggression failed
in its decree because it led to loss of civilian lives, internal and external
displacements.
Military
Intervention in Libya
Details of the Problem Being
Addressed
In February 2011, armed rebels advanced to Benghazi
and stories of an imminent bloodbath against non-combatants were picked by
international media. Muammar Qaddafi vowed to fight any resistance, and
highlighted the possibility of an extended and bloody conflict that could
affect civilians. Terry (2015) explained that the stand-off between the warring
factions prompted the involvement of NATO in the battle. The international
aggression affected any possible negotiations that included a prospect of a
ceasefire. NATO with the support of Western powers proposed an intervention
model that linked the legislative change to the protection of civilians. The
organization projected a military action that would only attack pro-regime
combatants. To achieve this objective, European states and the United States attacked
the pro-Gaddafi forces and supported armed rebels who effected change to end
the humanitarian disaster. NATO-led engagement predicted a successful intervention
that should have protected the Libya population, prevented genocide and fostered
democracy.
People involved in Decision Making
The escalated attacks increased the numbers of civilian casualties, and attracted international attention. The UNSC approved Resolution 1973 that imposed asset freeze, travel ban, naval blockade and arms embargo against the Gaddafi-led regime. It also referred the crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court (ICC). On 17 March 2011, according to the UNSC (2011), Security Council members passed the resolution on military involvement. The model intervention included intermediate states assuming responsibility, but unlike in Iraq, military personnel were allowed on the ground. Within days, NATO had implemented the mission stipulated in Chapter VII mission and carried out aerial bombing campaigns. NATO (2011) postulated that the aggression of allied forces and partners was an operation built from protecting "responsibility to protect" (R2P). A few weeks into the military assault, in violation of the mandate of UNSCR 1970, the United States and the United Kingdom enabled the rebels. Western powers had intervened to mitigate the humanitarian concern that ensued from the...
