US humanitarian interventions in the 1990s served geostrategic interests and killed civilians

Evidence

The first “humanitarian” mission of the 1990s was Clinton’s continuation of Bush’s Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1993. UN troops, under the leadership of the United States, were sent to address the food crisis and feed the hungry—yet the troops arrived months after those most threatened by hunger had already died of starvation. While the United States and UN justified the invasion on humanitarian grounds, US interests in Somalia’s geostrategic location and oil resources played a more significant role in the US decision to intervene. When eighteen US soldiers were killed (in an incident that formed the basis for the film Black Hawk Down), US troops departed and left the East African nation worse off than when they arrived. The United States also killed hundreds of Somali citizens. This intervention prefigured what was to come. Despite this, liberals provided cover for Clinton’s “humanitarianism.” Former leftists like Paul Berman and Michael Ignatieff cheered on this new imperialism, as did New Left icons like Daniel Cohn-Bendit. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 464

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to critiques of liberal-interventionist cover for empire, echoing arguments in the reader’s notes on humanitarian-war justifications. — connects to: US sanctions on 1990s Iraq killed over a million Iraqis — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 197; US humanitarian justifications masked strategic interests in the Somalia intervention — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 464; Somalia’s humanitarian mission served strategic interests and worsened outcomes

Broader Connections

• US humanitarian justifications masked strategic interests in the Somalia intervention #corroborates (0.88) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 464
• Somalia’s humanitarian mission served strategic interests and worsened outcomes #corroborates (0.80)