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
Most Senate Dems Vote Against Israel Arms Sales, With Some Shameful Holdouts
July 31, 2025
Take Action Now “The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders. “The…
A Hell Made for the Innocent: Of Monsters, Media, And The Gentle Language Of Genocide
July 30, 2025
Take Action Now Consider these words, from a Washington Post headline: “Gazans are dying of hunger.” That’s like saying a gunshot victim “died from…
Trump Wants To Stop Regulating Greenhouse Gases Entirely
July 30, 2025
Take Action Now The decision could have far-reaching consequences — including for the fossil fuel industry, which may find itself exposed to a flood…
‘MORAL INJURY’: Murdered In Gaza, Disappeared In America
July 30, 2025
Take Action Now It’s the concept that violence and injustice have more victims than the directly victimized. And can affect how we function and…