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
By Retreating In The Funding Fight, Democrats Have Abandoned Their Most Loyal Constituents: D.C. Voters
Take Action Now In capitulating on the GOP funding bill, Democrats have hung their most core constituents out to dry.By Sam Rosenthal On Friday,…
We Can’t Assume That Trump Will Author His Own Undoing
Take Action Now There will surely be turf wars and palace intrigue within the administration, but there is little reason to think that its core…
The Arrest Of Mahmoud Khalil, A Zero Hour Conversation With Sonali Kolhatkar
Take Action Now Eskow and Kolhatkar argue that if this repression is not challenged, it will escalate, targeting more individuals and further eroding…
Five Years After COVID, The GOP Is The Anti-Vaccine Party
Take Action Now Despite the ongoing spread of COVID, measles and bird flu, Trump has handed power to anti-vaxxers and vaccine skeptics.By Sasha…