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 »

CopperCicada · M

It's sort of a non-question, isn't it? Our language betrays that we're not genuinely interested in "humanitarian military intervention". If our language was at a human scale...human suffering, genocide, population displacement, and so on, then one could argue we're talking about "humanitarian intervention". Rather our language is generally about political boundaries and figures, as well as reactions and responses to events-- which all speaks to proxy wars, national building, imperialism.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@CopperCicada I agree but humanitarian reasons are usually used as justification. I am challenging people to justify it on their own terms.

WoodyAq · M

@CopperCicada I would somwhat disagree. "Nation-building" is a humanitarian endeavour; proxy wars and imperialism are not.

One issue is that we often have mixed motivations, so it's interests +. But just because we also have interests doesn't mean we aren't also humanitarians.

I think we don't really do enough pure or mostly humanitarian interventions, probably because a) we don't want to devote the resources; b) we realize we are pretty bad at it.

There is also the problem that it is thankless. It is easy to find fault and hard to demonstrate success.

CopperCicada · M

@WoodyAq It depends on what you call "nation building". Depending upon your definition it's identical to imperialism.

If "national building" is helping construct majorities so that people can self-rule, then, sure, nation building is a humanitarian activity.

To be specific and more precise, what the US primarily does is "state building" which is interventionist. And since it's interventionist and not based on building consensus popular rule, it is generally destabilizing and involves military investment and intervention.

Our language really speaks volumes.

Either the language itself or the timing of the language.

WoodyAq · M

@CopperCicada True. Although in many cases it devolves into building consensus where there is none to be had. And it is easier to blame "imperialism" than it is to say "We can't our act together" or admit "we want a certain system but our neighbors don't agree with us".