Military is a tool of war and if this tool is not used properly, it can bring in destruction as well as  disaster. “Military Intervention” as the name suggests is “the deliberate act of a nation or group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy. “Disarmament” on the other hand is a ‘Conflict Resolution’ strategy involving reduction or withdrawal of military forces. The reduction of military forces is something that fits best to describe disarmament. Why do countries involve the military in a transnational conflict, when it could be resolved by a peace talk? The expressions “military intervention” and “conflict resolution” would almost never have been voiced in the same sentence. The field of conflict resolution has its roots in the peace movements whereas wherever militaries have intervened in the domestic affairs of other countries they rarely have done so in an attempt to end a complex emergency – until recently. Bosnia and Herzegovina had joined several republics of the former Yugoslavia and had declared independence that triggered a civil war that lasted for approximately four years. Serbs and Croats living in Bosnia with the intention to take over Bosnia for Serbia and Croatia were the main cause for the Bosnian War which was a part of the breakup of Yugoslavia.1 These Serbs targeted mainly the Muslim people but killed many of the other Serbs with rocket, mortar etc. As equally important as this more than 12,000 residents were killed and villagers were devastated, more than thousands of Bosnians were thrown out of their houses, tortured and tormented. It all started from 1992 continued through 2008; wherein; wherein; the European Union had recognized Bosnia’s independence, however they were under the leadership of Radovan Karadzic and were captured and taken to Sarajevo.2 They had occupied more than 70% of the country, they had murdered and oppressed Muslims and Croats in order to get a community for the Serbs. Bosnia had tried to bring peace and harmony but had failed in this task, there was a war between Muslims and Croats. President Karadzic was arrested because of planning genocides. There was intervention from the military that made this conflict into an even bigger issue than ever. For more than 3.5 years following the breakup of Yugoslavia and the onset of war, the US denied to interfere and end the violence, however in 1995 the US did intervene to end the war in Bosnia. After various failed efforts of reliving the country from the bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians – the Dayton Peace Accords were negotiated to end the long going Bosnian War and this was regarded as the General Framework Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The United Nation’s Charter respects the “Sovereign equality of one another” The independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognized each other as independent states, their agreement included: – ·   Military Aspects of Peace Settlement·   Human Rights·   Assistance to Refugees·   Boundary Line between Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina·   Democratic Elections·   International Police Force- and many more.So do you think that military interventions are good for a particular country? Military is something that when involved in conflicts makes things worse rather than making them better, example: The Indian War against Pakistan has still left scars amongst citizens and the economy, while the war went on, the in-direct military that interfered confounded thousands of people. This problem needs attention because it is something that will cause devastation, not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but all over the world. In the conclusion it is crucial to mention that the political and moral problems are being presented as worries because the dialog of military expertise is hard to dispute. The immense gap between the civilian and military cultures has led to an enigmatic situation concerning military intervention. Military politics are not just the politics of necessity over which morality may (or may not) judge without really influencing anything and military action is not pure strategy. These means have to be understood in their political elements; military might  be influential, particularly in pursuit of humanitarian goals, but to use it as an instrument, a clear understanding of the relevant political mechanisms at work is needed.3