Terrorism in the global stage has blown up in considerable proportions that each and every civilized nation has justified actions which may include the use of force with the end in view to protect its citizens and ensure the safety of its territories. (Young, Karen de. A Fight Against Terrorism — and Disorganization. August 10, 2004. Vox Verax.
[internet]) Under these perspectives, a hypothesis has been developed in this paper to support the use of force in international relations because it is the general perception and theory that in doing so, terrorism and terrorists will be deterred in some way or the other, as an overwhelming and stern warning. The hypothesis: That there is a general approval for the use of force in international relations. The Use of Force in International Relations
The hypothesis presented in this paper will address the issue of the general consensus or approval for the use of force in international relations from the viewpoint of the United States of America with fifty four students of a Political Science class being the core respondents in the given survey. The analysis of the results will go in a free-wheeling discussion as the answers are assessed and evaluated in the stated order. The variables are included in these analyses.
Among others, such factors as gender, nationality or citizenship, party affiliation, groupings as to the belief of prejudice to United States interests and perception of the democratic processes, have been considered. The causal logical connections are explained here albeit the major one pertains to the present economic situation. From a macro viewpoint, it is like saying that there is a need for a war where force will be used. The subsequent logical query is: Can the United States of America and its people afford to finance that war out of taxpayers’ money? The figures in the statistics have to be laid down.
The gender representation is almost in the balance, twenty six to twenty eight, while the ratio as to citizenship with more United States citizens has a significant variance at forty one versus thirteen or seventy five per cent as against twenty five per cent. There are more Democrats than Republicans in the census at forty three to twenty two with the remainder distributed among independents and those without party affiliation. The over-all picture also shows more preference for Obama than McCain, forty five is to eight or eighty five percent versus fifteen per cent.
The other sub-groupings for party affiliation and president preference do not appear very relevant unless a separate analysis for each particular sub-group is made like, for instance, between US citizens and non-US citizens, for as long as the non-US citizens group has no members who are citizens of the country where force will be used as in the case of Iraqis. This is to emphasize that country bias has to be removed from the debate of the hypothesis. The highest number indicates favoring the use of force. Interestingly, sixty per cent of this group believes that the civil war will hurt the USA while forty percent does not.
This can be interpreted as an inconsistency on the part of the majority. This only shows that most people want the government to use force and yet they hate the idea of the civil war being prejudicial against the interests of the USA. This is a manifestation of selfishness. There is a desire to defeat and destroy the enemy but there is that hesitation to waste resources in the process. It is like wanting to eat the cake displayed for sale at one dollar and yet not wanting to part with a single cent out of the two dollars inside the pocket. As to whether the invader is a democracy or not does not matter, so it appears.
The dominant chosen decision is still favoring the use of force, that is, whether or not the invader is a democracy. This finding only stresses the general sentiment that the use of force is really necessary under the prevailing circumstances. Of the respondents who favor the use of force, majority believes in the strength of the military power of the invader although the imbalance is not significant at fifty five per cent as against forty five per cent. Anent the assessment on how the President has handled the situation, the figures are even.