nother – is one of the things human beings behave in common, however tragic the consequences.” Hillen (1996) reported that “deciding when, where and how to intervene with military force presents a truly perplexing set of questions.” It is even more difficult to decide and take focus on national strategy when military resources are limited.
There are several measures that are considered before an armed intervention is deemed necessary. First criterion is the national security interests. Hillen (1996) mentioned that the military should defend the national security interests and “President and Congress must recognize that not all national interests are equally important. They must also acknowledge that not all national interests are national security interests that require military intervention.” Second criterion is sovereignty. Haass (2003) reported that “When a government fails to live up to these responsibilities or abuses its prerogatives, it risks forfeiting its sovereign privileges — including, in extreme cases, its immunity from armed intervention.” In addition, Jackson (2008) mentioned that “Under international law and normal customs, states are prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs unless the legitimate government requests aid. The only exception would be if self-defense to an aggressive act by that state.” The third criterion is human rights. The protection of human rights has been one of the main reasons of military use. In September 1999, the United States has already declared that states bent on criminal behaviour should “know that frontiers are not an absolute defense that massive and systematic violations of human rights, wherever they may take place, should not be allowed to stand." (Haass, 2003). The fourth criterion is the expected net effect on the human condition. This criterion considers the “devastating effect of armed intervention in human life, private property, and long term effects on the surviving