Can anyone name a successful humanitarian military intervention by a western power in the last 50 years?

By successful, I mean actually benefitted the domestic population. I ask because I think its a hard question. You could [i]maybe [/i]make a case for what the UN did in Yugoslavia. After that, I'm struggling.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

I'm legitimately interested to see if there are any good answers to this question.

I don't know wtf to do about Syria aside from make sure there's a lot of infrastructure for refugees. A giant missile and pissing off Russia is really, really not the correct response though.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@CountScrofula It is generally tough. I find that so so so many people will support wars at the time but then are against them in retrospect. This time is always different.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Burnley123 Yeah. I don't think people get that you don't just bomb the bad guys, and then all the civilians live happily ever after.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@CountScrofula Its also a question of understanding the real causes. Don't wanna sound smug but we leftists are very critical of state institutions, the media etc. We also see war as supporting class interests and see international wars are imperialists. Its this understanding which predicts what happens and there is a lot of history to back that up.

Liberals (at least in Britain) tend to see the state as a neutral rational actor aiming for humane and legitimate goals. Apart from old wars, which were bad obviously but this war is a sensible one and we don't need to listen to those dangerous extremist hippies. No sir.

The liberal interventionists are the worst for me. See Chris Hitchens, Nick Cohen, Sam Harris and others. Bomb people to achieve freedom. Pfff.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Burnley123 Right. It's weird how liberalism kind of infects the left and destroys any kind of real analytical thought. Honestly it's a major problem with identity politics right now where they're reducing racism to a personal moral choice rather than a broader social system. That's a tangent but it's the same idea.

Like, even in the first Iraq War, that was really about how he had slipped the leash and was no longer a reliable proxy for western interests in the Middle East. He asked permission to invade Kuwait and took a non-response for a yes.