The idea of foreign intervention in matters of civil war has existed for centuries. While the term ''Civil War'' would indicate that it in fact is fought internally by the host country, this is very often not the case. Throughout history foreign countries have been involved in the civil wars of other nations in various means. Even in the United States' own civil war, foreign aid was garnered by the French and the British for both sides in an attempt to help further their respective interests within the country. For the purpose of this paper we will examine the most recent interventions by the United States into international civil wars and intra-state conflicts, chiefly those of Somalia and Grenada, and the ongoing effects that these interventions have caused. These interventions are increasingly globally reactive due to the expanding notion of globalization and with organizations such at the United Nations taking strides to reduce unilateral action by nations in other's interest.
In addition to these global factors as Americans we must also look at the importance that our nation places on sovereignty and the effects that these civil wars have on our position on it. America was founded on the concept of a sovereign state, and in fact even went so far as to fight a war to achieve independence from the British and this secure this sense of sovereignty. It thus presents itself as a paradox that the United States has engaged in multiple acts of foreign intervention and in turn effectively violating the sovereignty of the host nation. Each intervention presents a unique situation, ranging from multilateral UN intervention to the US unilateral intervention in support of self interest. Regardless of how the intervention is supported the concept of national sovereignty must be examined, especially when it is completed by a nation such as the United States who so adamantly supports it.
The right of national sovereignty is one of the corner stones on which the Unites States was founded. Born out of foreign oppression and control, the United States fought for its independence in order to set its own destiny. With the series of military interventions of the 20th Century, the United States has sullied those ideals by not only infringing on the sovereignty of other nations to handle their own ordeals, but also by sacrificing the US's soldiers on foreign battlefields at the behest of the UN. While these interventions may be attempting to protect United States interests abroad, they also commit the US to a self perpetuating role of global police officer for the future as well. Seen in Bosnia, Kosovo and even today in Iraq and Afghanistan, US soldiers give their lives not only for American interests, but for those of our allies. While this action is undoubtedly noble and good intentioned it comes to question whether the US is still the force required to keep the rest of the world in check.
Following the Cold War the United States possessed the largest military in the World and as such was poised to work as the enforcer of the United Nations. After multiple military budget cuts and downsizing throughout the Clinton administration however, the United States quickly found itself possessing a much smaller, lesser equipped and morally downtrodden military than it had following the Cold War. Because of this fact, when the time once again came to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States military found itself undermanned and under-equipped thanks to previous cuts. Stretched thin across two front, but bolstered by increased funding and a slight bump in manpower the military became fully committed to the middle east.
Meanwhile in other areas of the world foreign civil wars continue to rage, but without direct US interests or UN interest being involved nothing continues to be done about them. In the Sudan the conflict in Darfur continues with the killing and genocide of peoples en-masse, yet nothing is done. It should however not be the responsibility of the United States to always step in, but rather the rest of the international community. The United States is deeply committed to the global war on terror and is simply not the country it was during and after the Reagan administration. Through economic strife and effective military neutering, the United States is simply not capable of policing the world at the request of the UN, but instead should look out for its own interests at home and abroad. The United States has paid their global due and served their service as the world's military, it is time to let someone else pick up the reins and take charge.