Humanitarian Interventionism
Posted by Radley Balko on July 03, 2003
...It sounds awful, but no, I don't think I would have supported us invading Europe for the sole purpose of stopping or preventing the Holocaust. I would have supported diplomatic pressure. But not military intervention.
Before you think me a cold, cancer-hearted bastard, let me again quote the eminently quotable Gene Healy:
In the 20th century genocide Olympics, Hitler only got the bronze medal. Stalin got the gold. Mao, the silver.
And he's right. Horrible and despicable and deplorable as the Holocaust was, why are six million murdered Jews so often used as the benchmark of when U.S. humanitarian intervention would have been justified, but not the estimated 40 to 60 million people murdered by the Soviet Union, the 45 to 100 million murdered by the red Chinese, or the 2 to 4 million murdered Cambodians?
We went into Europe not to save the Jews from Hitler's final solution, but because Hitler posed a threat to our sovereignty. We stayed out of the others because either (a) they weren't a threat, or, (b) invading would have put us more at risk than not invading.
So, I'll say it again. The only legitimate use of the American military is to defend the security, safety and freedom of Americans. Defending innocent Liberians from rebel Liberians is noble, but it isn't justified, or authorized by the Constitution. And finding mass graves in Iraq after the invasion may make us feel better about the lack of WMDs, but it lends no moral weight to the initial decision to invade....
