The justification for the use of military force implies war. The constitution invests authority in Congress to approve and to declare war when the sovereignty of the country is threatened; or when a serious humanitarian crisis emerges; or in the case of violations of international conventional laws that lead to mass casualties. But the use of military force often makes a bad situation worse.

The United States, throughout its history, has faced situations where military force was used. Such a use of force must be approved by the legislative branch of government. The reason for a war declaration must be based on a tangible evidence that a threat or an attack on the country is imminent. Military force can also be used when a country uses unconventional weapons against its enemies or its own people.

For example, in 2014, the decision of President Obama to seek Congressional authorization to strike Syria was justified because Syrian Air Force in their civil war allegedly used sarin gas and chemical weapons on their own people. The use of those unconventional weapons caused thousands of civilian injuries, deaths and the displacement of many more people. This allegation against President Assad was later proved false.

Also, following September 11, 2001 attack, the U.S. military force was used in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. Then, the United States went to war with Iraq in 2003 under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction.

But the use of military force produces some adverse consequences. It often leads to a prolonged armed conflict that worsens an already volatile situation. Armed conflicts rarely reach a desirable goal; only a political strategy does. Taking up arms for whatever the cause creates human tragedy, loss of materials and lives. War is costly. Since both sides inflict casualties and losses on each other, winning essentially becomes surreal.

On the other hand, a retrospective look in U.S. history reveals that the use of military force can be truly justified. One obvious example was the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941, which dragged the United States into World War II. It was a brutal and tragic war.

For the first time in history, the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those Japanese cities were reduced to rubbles, and the victims of the bomb bore the indelible scars of war for decades. Hirohito, the Emperor of Japan at the time, ultimately conceded defeat. So the war had ended. The Americans won, but the war was too costly in human lives and materials to call it a clear victory.

In this context, the justification for the use of force does not make fighting a war an ideal way for solving difficult world or personal issues. Rather, it exacerbates them. A political solution is always the right option to consider because it satisfies to a great degree the aspirations of both warring parties. In contrast, the aggressors do not seek any justification for their use of military force, as long as their aggression satisfies their ambitions. Nevertheless, in the absence of a threat or an attack, there would be no use of military force and no bloodshed.

The use of military force can somehow be justified; war can be declared and fought; but in the aftermath, the end does not always justify the means. “Let us wage a moral and political war against war itself so that we can cut military spending and use that money for human needs." Bernie Sanders