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
Zohran Mamdani on the Promise of America
Take Action Now In a speech marking the country’s 250th anniversary, socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani lays out his vision of a United…
Are We Willing to Actually Tax Billionaires or Only Willing to Talk About It?
Take Action Now The question before us in California is not complicated. Are we going to stand with the three million people—our friends and…
The Great American State Fair Is a Great Trumpian Disaster
Take Action Now The debacle on the National Mall captures an administration in free fall—and a president who is only interested in celebrating…
The Billionaire Money Behind New Centrist Pledge
Take Action Now Promise to America won’t disclose who is funding its new anti-socialist pledge. But the group is closely tied to the Welcome…