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
Mamdani’s Massive Victory Should Show Democrats Where The Party’s Future Lies
June 26, 2025
Take Action Now NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has thrown the drowning Democratic Party a life vest. Will its leaders use it?By Sam…
India Walton’s Advice For Zohran Mamdani
June 26, 2025
Take Action Now “I think that for him, the race ’til November needs to be staying on message—we can’t start to water it down…
AIPAC Has Too Much Influence On Congress, Says Rep. Ro Khanna
June 25, 2025
Take Action Now The antiwar California House Democrat answers tough questions from Mehdi and a live DC audience about Trump’s attack on Iran.By…
Zohran Mamdani’s Win Is the Beginning Of The End Of The Old Democratic Party
June 25, 2025
Take Action Now Mamdani’s NYC primary victory shows that the old tricks of the political establishment are dying out—and something new is being……