When America intervened in Libya, we were told we were doing so for humanitarian reasons. President Obama declared “some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” This sounds like as noble a reason as any to commit the nation to a military engagement; but, is it a realistic one? America has a long history of using moral imperatives to rationalize its involvement in war; but, it seems that these days we’re using the logic of humanitarian intervention more and more often. Joining us to explain the trend toward the humanitarian war is Tom Ricks, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and contributing editor at Foreign Policy Magazine where he writes the blog The Best Defense.
The story you just read is available to read for free because thousands of listeners and readers like you generously support our nonprofit newsroom. Every day, the reporters and producers at The World are hard at work bringing you human-centered news from across the globe. But we can’t do it without you: We need your support to ensure we can continue this work for another year.
When you make a gift of $10 or more a month, we’ll invite you to a virtual behind-the-scenes tour of our newsroom to thank you for being with The World.