US humanitarian justifications masked strategic interests in the Somalia intervention

Evidence

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. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 464

Categorization

• XREF: Feeds the pre-9/11 record of ‘humanitarian imperialism’ that Kumar argues is the backdrop to post-9/11 Islamophobia-as-imperial-policy, echoing Rana and Aziz on US empire. — connects to: US humanitarian interventions in the 1990s served geostrategic interests and killed civilians — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 464; Somalia’s humanitarian mission served strategic interests and worsened outcomes; US humanitarian intervention in Somalia served geostrategic and oil interests, not rescue — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 409 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The 1993 Somalia intervention served geostrategy despite humanitarian framing #corroborates (0.97)
• Somalia’s humanitarian mission served strategic interests and worsened outcomes #corroborates (0.95)
• US humanitarian intervention in Somalia served geostrategic and oil interests, not rescue #corroborates (0.95) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 409