Humanitarian Intervention" Rationale for the Iraq and future wars?

Good read Glynch.

I found this quote interesting and relevant to many of our discussions.

Approval by the UN Security Council, moreover, cannot magically transform the war against evil into a legitimate rationale for military intervention. The very hope suggests the bankruptcy of the left, as if we can oppose this Administration's dangerous adventurism only by embracing patently obsolete and ineffective institutions. After all, American unilateralism is to some extent the bitter fruit of dysfunctional multilateralism, the EU's as well as the UN's.

Stephen Holmes teaches at the New York University School of Law.

 

glynch likes the Euro, Ivory-tower, liberal, anti-US essay? Color me shocked. I liked how the writers claimed that the war was illegitimate, USING CRITERIA THAT THE WAR ACTUALLY MET.
1) All diplomatic means must be exausted: if it wasn't gettin' done from '91-'03, it probably just wasn't gettin' done.
2) There must be abuses of human rights that result in large-scale loss of life with or without genocidal intent, or large-scale ethnic cleansing: How many Iraqis have starved to death over the last 12 years?
I will admit that I have only read the first three articles so far, but they seem so homogeneous in character, that I will be very surprised to find an opposing viewpoint.

 

I think these guys are more in tune with reality:

America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm