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 Data Brokers Fueling ICE’s Deportation Machine—And The Union Shareholders Fighting Back
Take Action Now “As investors, we are thinking about this as a risk to our investments, but also as a social and ethical issue.”By Maurizio…
The Murdering Of Boaters Is Public, Not Secret
Take Action Now Murdering boaters is not legal or illegal depending on whether the emperor has called his victims “terrorists.”By David Swanson,…
Tensions In Latin America Rise As U.S. Threatens Venezuela & Colombia
Take Action Now “There seems to be a much bigger political context behind this than really going after drug traffickers, which seems to be … not at…
Still No Jobs Report, But The Labor Market Doesn’t Look Good
Take Action Now Donald Trump has made it clear he doesn’t care about rules and norms. We can assume that he has seen the report, and based on its…