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 »

Northwest · M

I can't think of one, that can be called an unequivocal success. Even in minor interventions, in former colonial lands, intervention was successful, but only to the point of shoring up the former colonialists friendly regimes.

Was kicking Saddam out of Kuwait a good thing? perhaps, but it's not like Kuwait is the model of democracy/human rights. Were interventions in formerly colonial Africa good? Perhaps, but only in the sense that they restored the corrupt/brutal status quo.

Was Somalia a success? Not a chance. Look at the state of Somalia today.

Was Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia OK? To a point, where an incredibly brutal regime, was replaced with a slightly less brutal regime.

Was removing Qaddafi a good thing? No, and it's not similar to Syria at all. The dynamics in Syria are quite different, where you have multiple sects and a minority in charge, while Libya does not have that problem, and is now ruled by gangs.

WoodyAq · M

@Northwest The government had disintegrated in Libya in half of the country prior to our intervention. Qadaffi led mostly by fear. Suddenly, a lot of people were not scared of him any more. Reinstilling fear in a population when small scale arbitrary torture and murder no longer do the trick is a nasty business.

Keep in mind that the Libya situation happened when oil prices were still high, as well.

As for Somalia: 1992s famine was averted by intervention. That has to be a good thing.