Should the U.S. engage troops to promote democracy?

[NcDeuce]

Should the U.S. engage troops to promote democracy? Under what circumstances?

Let's try to keep this civil.

[Howitz]

im not sure i understand the question......

[DE_Six]

I think that when a democratic regime comes under threat, and if the host nation requires help against subversive forces, then military force can be used to protect the institutions. The intervention in Haiti in 1994 is a good example of that, albeit the elected leader no longer had the support of an overwhelming majority.

This said, IMHO, I don't think military force can be used to force democracy upon a population. Force can be used to protect budding democratic institutions, especially in a post-war chaos, but in itself, it is nation-building efforts, which entails education, cooperation and reconstruction, that will truly give birth to something solid.

I think the US should engage in the promotion of democracy worldwide, not only in conflictual ways (Iraq, Afghnistan) but also in encouraging reforms. However, sometimes ideals can be in the way of national interests, so it's not as simple as spreading the good word. I think this responsibility comes with the position of leading power, within respect of national interets first, of course. Military force can be used as prescribed, but it shouldn't become the hallmark of US efforts to promote democracy.

[KB]

DE6 is on the mark. The US can't implement democracy, only nurture its growth.

[vryhpyammoadded]

First I do not agree with Democracy but instead support democratically elected Market Republics and feel troops should be engaged whenever diplomatic and clandestine efforts have obviously failed to end threats to regional and world stability or, if imminent threat of danger exists in not sending troops.
Some triggers that warrant military intervention and reformation of local governments.
1. International/regional terror supported directly by the government.
2. International/regional terror supported indirectly by nongovernmental organizations (NGO) in defacto control of the government.
3. Military actions taken against allies by government or defacto control NGO government.
4. Treaty requirements
5. Declaration of war by the government or defacto NGO government.
6. Peace keeping during revolution or dissolution of the government.

[SpazzMunky]

Military force shouldnt be used. it alienates the population from the democracy movement to a point where it is no longer the will of the people. Then you get into conflicts like Vietnam, where governments that dont want to be propped up are propped up. (Although Vietnam was more propping up capitalism than democracy.)

[James]

I think that when a democratic regime comes under threat, and if the host nation requires help against subversive forces, then military force can be used to protect the institutions. The intervention in Haiti in 1994 is a good example of that, albeit the elected leader no longer had the support of an overwhelming majority.

This said, IMHO, I don't think military force can be used to force democracy upon a population. Force can be used to protect budding democratic institutions, especially in a post-war chaos, but in itself, it is nation-building efforts, which entails education, cooperation and reconstruction, that will truly give birth to something solid.

I think the US should engage in the promotion of democracy worldwide, not only in conflictual ways (Iraq, Afghnistan) but also in encouraging reforms. However, sometimes ideals can be in the way of national interests, so it's not as simple as spreading the good word. I think this responsibility comes with the position of leading power, within respect of national interets first, of course. Military force can be used as prescribed, but it shouldn't become the hallmark of US efforts to promote democracy.

Very well said.

I think the primary mission of the U.S. Military should be to

"...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Now, where have I heard that before?

[Hot Lips]

Nice post De6.

[usa320]

I think that when a democratic regime comes under threat, and if the host nation requires help against subversive forces, then military force can be used to protect the institutions. The intervention in Haiti in 1994 is a good example of that, albeit the elected leader no longer had the support of an overwhelming majority.

This said, IMHO, I don't think military force can be used to force democracy upon a population. Force can be used to protect budding democratic institutions, especially in a post-war chaos, but in itself, it is nation-building efforts, which entails education, cooperation and reconstruction, that will truly give birth to something solid.

I think the US should engage in the promotion of democracy worldwide, not only in conflictual ways (Iraq, Afghnistan) but also in encouraging reforms. However, sometimes ideals can be in the way of national interests, so it's not as simple as spreading the good word. I think this responsibility comes with the position of leading power, within respect of national interets first, of course. Military force can be used as prescribed, but it shouldn't become the hallmark of US efforts to promote democracy.