Humanitarian intervention is how those profiting from war sell it to the American people. Don’t believe it ever again.
By Achin Vanaik, Jacobin
During the late 1990s and the early 2000s, the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” came to the fore as a justification for US-led military adventures in the Balkans and the Middle East. A number of recent events have revived our memory of those debates, from the ignominious US withdrawal from Afghanistan, just as the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was approaching, to the deaths of leading Bush administration officials such as Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell.
For many people, the disastrous outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan will be enough to discredit the idea of humanitarian intervention. But past experience suggests that the justification it offers for military action is too useful to be discarded by the United States and its allies. Such arguments may well be used in support for future wars. We still need to address and refute the case for “humanitarian” warfare on its own terms.
Recent Posts
The Private Equity Lobbyist Network Surrounding Chuck Schumer
Take Action Now Blackstone, Apollo, and private equity trade groups employ Schumer alumni to push their interests in Washington as progressive…
With 74% of Voters Saying Iran War Was Big Factor in Midterms, Dems Urged to Become Peace Party
Take Action Now “Will Democrats finally get it?” asked one progressive expert. “Americans are tired of war. They want a new foreign policy.”By…
Democrats Have Been Handed an Antiwar Mandate — and the Opportunity to Enact It
Take Action Now The Democratically controlled Congress must go further than just war powers resolutions, an ex-Biden official says.By Sharon…
Van Hollen Says No Rubber Stamp for Schumer as Majority Leader Without Support for ‘Bold Agenda’
Take Action Now “It’s not a time for incrementalism,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. “It’s a time to move forward a very bold kitchen table agenda.”…