First of all, this is a school related question, but I feel I am within the rules. I have researched a ton, just need a little directing from people who may be used to writing History papers.
So the question is, "Since the Civil War, has the United States been justified in its use of force abroad? Why or Why not?"
I just feel that is such a complicated question to answer in like 5 pages(especially because it's an in class essay tomorrow and we can't bring sources. Only stuff from memory). So like in WW2 for example.
For the Spanish-American war, the sinking of the Maine looks like a fake reason to start a war, but then again the evidence is not definitive.
For WW1, the sinking of the lusitania is often cited as a farcical reason for entering the war, but maybe we needed to be there anyway. Maybe the public wouldn't have accepted, "They are after our allies and upping the use of submarines in the Atlantic. We can't allow it". Does this "unjustify" the entire war.
WW2 seems like an obvious "good war" to defeat the evil force of Germany. The entering of the war(even if we could have stopped Pearl Harbor) was justified do to the pure evilness of the enemy(though I do lend some credence to the whole Judicial review bullshit arguments at the Nuremberg Trials); however, there is evidecne that Americans(whom the American government was mostly complicit with, handing out "trading with the enemies" allowances to just about anybody) pushed the world toward war in order to make a profit. Here is what I wrote on WW2 alone as I think it shows that even in seemingly obvious situations, the justifiedness of war is pretty grey. Let me know what you think of that if you read it btw.
I think it's a bit easier in the future. Subversive intervention like the "Make the econonmy scream" incident with Nixon and Chile(https://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/10/40_years_after_chiles_9_11) shows a pretty blatant lack of respect for foreign governments. Also similar medaling with Democratic elections in Hati(and countless other places) where we put our interests ahead of the people on the island seem like obvious oversteps. But then again we don't know how threatening the "Communist menace" actually was. Maybe they were very close to violent takeovers in some regions and we felt a responsibility to stop it. Though this article has me just about convinced that the entire threat was pretty much a farce in the first place.
Even after all this research, I may end up switching to the alternate question, "To what extent can the civil rights movement be considered a “Second Reconstruction”? Why or why not?" because it seems more specific and easier to answer.
Got any advice for me?
The most important thing is to establish definitions before you do any analysis, so that you and your audience are on the same page. How you choose to view the incidents themselves is subjective, but our definitions must be the same or we are talking at cross purposes.
The important points here are justified and use of force:
You could write fifty volumes on the notion of just war, let alone five pages, so here you need to be incisive. We can go all the way back to St. Augustine for a definition but this is your work and your viewpoint, so you will need to tell us what you think. Is a first strike acceptable? Are only conventional weapons (non-WMD) acceptable? Is any amount of collateral damage allowed? Tell your audience what their author's definition of 'justifiable force' is so we have a shared metric.
Also, what is a use of force? Is it launching an invasion of Vietnam? Most people would say yes. Is it giving weapons to Afghans fighting against the USSR? Some may say no. Is it providing 'military instructors' to train the troops of friendly governments? Many might disagree. You, as our writer, need to tell us what you mean by use of force so we have the same definition in our heads.
This is the analytical framework you need to communicate efficiently in such a small space. So in your chosen events and cases, tell us, did the US use force according to your definition? If yes, was it justified according to your definition? How you choose to portray the cases themselves is your own opinion and nobody can tell you what to conclude, just be honest about how you felt as you carried out your research and what you learned, but stick to your definitions and your method.
It sounds like you've done some good work for this and I'm sure you'll do well! Just remember that five pages is gone in the blink of an eye so, so make it count. Think to yourself, 'does this point move the essay along and help to make an argument?'