News Release

Does “Humanitarian Intervention” Do What Proponents Claim?


[Theodore A. Postol, professor of science, technology, and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, just did a very critical assessment of White House claims about the nerve agent attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. Postol writes: “No competent analyst would assume that the crater cited as the source of the sarin attack was unambiguously an indication that the munition came from an aircraft.” Here’s an updated version.]

International Business Times reports: “Trump Takes U-Turn on NATO.”

DAVID GIBBS, dgibbs [at]
Gibbs is professor of history at the University of Arizona, who specializes in international relations and military intervention. His most recent book is First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia from Vanderbilt University Press.

He said today: “U.S. policy is embarking on a reckless course, one that is unlikely to produce any positive results, either in terms of enhancing U.S. security or alleviating human suffering. Even if the policy is successful, regime change in Syria would only increase the ongoing chaos and humanitarian catastrophe, as the multiple rebel groups turn on each other. In general, the history of U.S. efforts at overthrowing dictators in such cases as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya has led to instability and many years of civil war, as well as new terrorist threats against the West. There is no reason to believe the situation in Syria would be any different. In addition, military interventions in Syria are sure to worsen U.S. relations with Russia, and will thus increase the risk of nuclear war.”

U.S. News reports: “Donald Trump Approves NATO Expansion as Tillerson Travels to Moscow.”

Gibbs has long scrutinized NATO, see Institute for Public Accuracy news release from 2014: “NATO: Part of Solution — Or Problem.”