Christopher Hitchens: Humanitarian Intervention

Words: 480
Pages: 2

The late and great Christopher Hitchens argues that humanitarian intervention is a vital piece of American democracy. Hitchens argues that borders are becoming ever open and contingent that everyone is getting involved in humanitarian aid. War is vital for human rights reforms and aid discussions. The 1994 Rwandan genocide is an example of our mistakes in foreign policy and how we should have intervened more with humanitarian aid or even with the military (Hitchens, Christopher. "Just causes: the case for humanitarian intervention".) Those who are anti intervention on any level seem to be naive. Take for example Mehdi Hasan who argues that we should not intervene militarily and focus on diplomacy to put pressure on China, Iran and especially …show more content…
This was back and 2012. I ask Mehdi and people who say we shouldn't intervene, where has diplomacy got us? Noam Chomsky is biased towards liberalism and is an anti interventionist. Differing from Maajid Nawaz, Noam Chomsky has a different view. Noam states that the chaos we see in the Middle East and North Africa are largely the result of US policies, like, the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Gaddafi, the green light to the military dictatorship overthrowing the elected government in Egypt, and regime change in Syria rather than fighting I.S.I.S. I will use this view to disagree with anti interventionists because we can not be held responsible for attitudes on human rights. We can't be held accountable for intervening and not intervening. In Iraq, the Saddam regime committed atrocities against humanity. The human rights abuses is Iraq at that time where so barbaric the west had to claim moral high ground and had to intervene. However, the Bush administration had so little knowledge about how to conduct a smooth transition that it caused a sectarian feud. Intervention is something and the transition is something