The integration of humanitarian action into intervention operations, and particularly the inclusion of a military component, carries risks—but none so great as to be worth sacrificing integration on the altar of humanitarian purity. As in the case of Iraq in the first, emergency phase of an operation, humanitarian teams working closely with the combat troops can greatly reduce civilian suffering caused by shock, displacement, and lack of access to necessities of daily life. In the transition phase, as the military begins to turn over power to an independent political authority, integration of development teams is likewise important. Integration in the interest of humanity is no vice. Humanitarian exclusivity in the interest of purity is no virtue. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the State Department is multilateralist in its approach to humanitarian action—because it works.
You may also like

AUG 27, 2021 • Journal
Ethics & International Affairs Volume 35.2 (Summer 2021)
The highlight of this issue is a roundtable organized by Adrian Gallagher on the responsibility to protect in a changing world order. The roundtable contains ...

JAN 27, 2020 • Podcast
Just War, Unjust Soldiers, & American Public Opinion, with Scott D. Sagan
Do soldiers fighting for a "just cause" have more rights than soldiers fighting on the other side? In this interview following up on an "Ethics & ...
.jpg)
DEC 9, 2019 • Journal
Ethics & International Affairs Volume 33.4 (Winter 2019)
The centerpiece of the Winter 2019 issue of "Ethics & International Affairs" is a symposium entitled "Just War and Unjust Soldiers," with a lead article by Scott ...