Edward Herman: Gilbert Achcar’s Defense of Humanitarian Intervention

Really takes him to task, particularly this bit:

He doesn’t ask how their concern for Libyan civilians can be genuine when simultaneously they support the crackdown on Bahraini civilians and the invasion of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia. Assuredly he doesn’t refer to Madeleine Albright’s 1996 statement that the U.S. policy-caused death of 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth it” as indicative of U.S. concern over foreign civilian well-being. Or the significance of the almost daily reports of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. drone attacks, and the many thousands of “collateral damage” deaths in these countries and Iraq. Weapons evolution with drones and cluster bombs has tended to enlarge civilian casualties.[7] Shouldn’t this be mentioned in evaluating claims that a military response featuring air-power will serve to protect civilians?

There’s also a couple of pars earlier on that are very interesting, debunking Achcar’s use of Rwanda as an example where Western intervention could have saved lives. Herman points out that the West were heavily involved in Rwanda before the massacre and US support for Paul Kagame’s armed rebels could have “touched off” the slaughter.