Latin America is a region plagued with a long history of coups, and the chances of ousted governments being returned to power peacefully have rarely been good.
Yet, U.S. diplomats, with the help of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, appear to be on their way to doing just that in Honduras.
According to an agreement signed last Friday, the National Congress in Honduras will decide whether to reinstate Manuel Zelaya as president after soldiers removed him from power and replaced him with Roberto Micheletti.
“If the deal succeeds, it could be a landmark advance for democracy in Latin America, sending a signal that coups will no longer be tolerated,” according to the Washington Post.
Mr. Arias has mediated the situation since July.
It is important to note the United States did not intervene militarily in this situation. This provides a sharp contrast to another deal brokered Friday in which the United States and Colombia agreed to allow U.S. forces greater access to military bases within that country to combat drug trafficking there.
This poses an important question: What should be the main deciding factors for whether the United States utilizes armed intervention in a situation?
It appears the major criteria for the use of U.S. military intervention is whether the situation in the country is perceived as a sufficiently serious security threat to the United States and whether diplomacy is a viable option.
However, two additional points should be given greater emphasis: the size of the forces required and whether other countries will also intervene with substantial military forces.
The United States should refrain from sending troops to a country if large amounts of troops are required and other countries are unwilling to send significant forces themselves.
According to Reuters, “the American military presence in [Colombia] will not exceed caps previously set by the U.S. Congress of 800 military personnel and 600 contractors.”
In contrast, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is expected to rise to 68,000 after President Obama approved an increase in the number of troops earlier this spring.
At a time when the United States has troops tied in various situations around the world, the United States can ill afford to intervene in countries that require such a large number of troops, especially when U.S. troops account for more than half of the foreign coalition forces in the country.
Instead, the United States should intervene in a greater number of countries, like Colombia, that do not demand such a large number of troops, yet have a large potential impact on U.S. security.
As the problems in Pakistan and Mexico continue to grow in relative importance, the U.S. could take a bigger role in those situations if we did not have so many troops tied in Afghanistan.
In future endeavors, the United States must consider the opportunities lost through intervention along with the security implications so we do not find ourselves in a situation like the one we are in with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Christopher Long is a Management and Spanish double major
