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
Starbucks Workers Build Steam
Take Action Now Since last fall, the union effort has increased its capacity to exert pressure on the corporate mega-giant—including in a March 22…
Banking Crisis 3.0: Time To Change The Rules Of The Game
Take Action Now What constituted a radical departure from capitalist principles in the last financial crisis was not “nationalization” but an…
Behind The #StopCopCity Domestic Terrorism Warrants
Take Action Now “Most of the criminal defense lawyers I have spoken with are indicating that there is no individualized suspicion in any of these…
Here’s How The US Could Phase Out Fossil Fuels Fast
Take Action Now A new report lists 10 policies to constrain polluting infrastructure and achieve key climate goals. By Joseph Winters, Grist On…