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
Why Do We Let Zionists Decide What We Can and Can’t Say?
Take Action Now Kraft is a man who appears in the Epstein files, was twice caught on camera with prostitutes, donates heavily to the IDF, and even…
Trump Says He’s Banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico From the White House
Take Action Now “These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public,” said one press freedom advocate.By Stephen…
Bases Without Names: How Governments Rebrand the U.S. Military Presence
Take Action Now Across Asia, Europe and the Middle East, governments use an expanding vocabulary to describe sites that accommodate U.S. troops,…
Getting Into ‘Good Trouble’ Over Arc de Trump
Take Action Now A retired Army colonel flew in from Hawaii to make sure Trump’s arch doesn’t go up quietlyBy Jonathan Capehart, Substack On the…