Military intervention

Military Intervention, sometimes colloquially called an invasion, is the use of armed force, political pressure, covert action, economic pressure, or institutional power by one state, coalition, or military force inside the territory or political conflict of another country. It can include invasion, occupation, bombing, expeditionary warfare, military advisers, proxy warfare, peacekeeping, counterinsurgency, covert operations, sanctions, aid conditionality, or direct support for one side in a civil war or national liberation struggle.

In ordinary speech, the word "invasion" is often used for any major foreign military entry into another country. More precisely, an invasion is a form of military intervention in which armed forces enter, attack, or occupy a territory. Military intervention is broader: it may occur through troops, airstrikes, proxy forces, intelligence agencies, humanitarian organizations, development agencies, sanctions, or military aid.

In international law, the United Nations Charter generally prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states, while also recognizing self-defense if an armed attack occurs. However, legality alone does not settle the political question. To anti-imperialists, military intervention must also be analyzed according to its class character, imperialist role, effect on self-determination, relationship to national liberation, and material consequences for the people affected.

In liberal and bourgeois discourse, military intervention is often discussed through abstract language such as "security", "humanitarianism", "democracy", "development", "stability", "peacekeeping", or "self-defense". Michael Parenti argues that imperialist interventions are often sanitized as matters of "national defense", "national security", and regional "stability", rather than named as imperial domination.

Military intervention is not politically identical in all cases. An imperialist invasion to seize territory, impose a client regime, crush socialism, or open markets is not the same as an anti-fascist intervention against a genocidal occupying power, or an internationalist intervention requested by a revolutionary government fighting apartheid or counterrevolution. However, because imperialist states frequently use humanitarian or democratic language to disguise domination, anti-imperialists generally treat foreign intervention with suspicion unless its liberatory character can be clearly demonstrated.

Definition

An invasion is a form of military intervention in which armed forces enter, attack, or occupy another territory. An occupation is a prolonged form of military or political control following invasion or intervention. The International Committee of the Red Cross describes occupation as a situation in which territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army.

Military intervention can also occur without a formal invasion. Examples include bombing campaigns, naval blockades, military advisers, proxy armies, covert action, sanctions linked to military pressure, aid conditionality, development programs, intelligence operations, or support for coups and counterinsurgency.

The word "invasion" describes a military act, not by itself the political character of that act. For example, the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France in 1944 and the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 were both invasions in the military sense, but they had opposite political meanings. One was part of the defeat of fascist occupation; the other was a genocidal fascist war of conquest.

Military intervention therefore has to be judged politically, not only linguistically. The question is not simply whether foreign force entered a country, but what social force the intervention served, who was harmed, who was strengthened, and whether it expanded or destroyed self-determination.

Invasion and intervention

"Invasion" and "intervention" are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not identical. An invasion usually refers to the direct entry of armed forces into a territory. Intervention is broader and can include direct invasion, military aid, advisers, airstrikes, proxy armies, covert action, sanctions, aid conditionality, development programs, or support for coups and counterinsurgency.

Occupation is related to both terms, but it is not the same as either one. An invasion refers to the act of entering or attacking a territory; an intervention refers to foreign involvement in another country’s political or military conflict; occupation refers to prolonged foreign control after territory has been placed under the authority of an outside force. The International Committee of the Red Cross describes occupation as territory being placed under the authority of a hostile army. An invasion may lead to occupation, and an intervention may become occupation, but not every intervention includes occupation and not every invasion produces long-term occupation.

The political question is therefore not only whether foreign force entered a country, but what class and geopolitical project the intervention served. A military intervention may defend an oppressed people, assist a revolutionary government, defeat fascism, or stop genocide. It may also destroy self-determination, overthrow a popular government, defend imperial interests, protect private property, or impose colonial and capitalist domination.

In this sense, intervention is comparable to both nationalism and occupation. Nationalism can be progressive when oppressed nations use it against colonialism and imperialism, but reactionary when imperialist, settler-colonial, or fascist states use it to dominate others. Occupation can be part of defeating fascism or genocide in some cases, but it can also become imperialist, colonial, settler-colonial, or annexationist domination when it denies self-determination and imposes foreign control. Military intervention has to be judged in the same concrete way: not by the word alone, but by the forces involved, the historical context, and the results for the people affected.

Anti-imperialist analysis

Self-determination

Self-determination is a central principle in anti-imperialist politics, but it is not an abstract slogan that applies equally to oppressor and oppressed forces. The right of oppressed nations to self-determination is progressive because it means liberation from colonialism, imperialism, occupation, apartheid, or national oppression. The "self-determination" of settler-colonial or imperial groups, however, can become reactionary when it is used to preserve domination over another people.

For example, Palestinian self-determination is an anti-colonial demand because Palestinians are a colonized and occupied people whose land, sovereignty, movement, and return have been denied. By contrast, Zionist claims to "Israeli self-determination" are not politically equivalent when they are used to justify settlement, apartheid, occupation, military domination, and the denial of Palestinian self-determination. In that case, the language of self-determination becomes a shield for settler-colonial power.

The same distinction appears in other contexts. Indigenous self-determination against settler states is not the same as settler claims to rule Indigenous land. Colonized peoples fighting empire are not the same as imperial states claiming the right to dominate colonies. A revolutionary movement struggling against occupation is not the same as a colonial power defending its occupation.

Self-determination therefore has to be analyzed according to concrete social relations. The key questions are: who is oppressed, who is oppressing, who controls land and resources, who is being denied sovereignty, and whether the political demand expands liberation or protects domination.

Imperialism and counterrevolution

Imperialist interventions are interventions carried out to preserve or expand the power of imperialist states, capitalist property, colonial domination, military alliances, or corporate access to resources, markets, labor, trade routes, and strategic territory. They are often justified through language such as "democracy", "human rights", "security", "anti-terrorism", "development", or "stability".

Western military and political interventions have often been connected to resources and strategic location. This does not mean every intervention has only one cause, but anti-imperialists argue that resources, markets, military geography, and control over independent states are central to imperial policy. Parenti argues that empires are commonly presented as defending order or humanitarianism while pursuing material interests and domination

The 1953 coup in Iran followed the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and British and U.S. officials supported the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh's government. In Congo, U.S. officials described Katanga as central to Congo's mineral production, including copper, cobalt, manganese, and uranium In Chile, U.S. covert action operated against Salvador Allende, whose program included nationalization of copper mines and other reforms

Counterrevolutionary interventions are interventions aimed at destroying socialist, communist, anti-colonial, nationalist, or popular movements. They may be carried out directly through invasion or indirectly through coups, proxy forces, death squads, sanctions, aid conditionality, non-governmental organizations, intelligence operations, or political funding.

Anti-imperialists therefore do not judge intervention only by whether it is violent in the immediate military sense. A coup, a proxy war, a sanctions regime, or a development program can function as intervention if it is used to reshape another country in the interests of imperialism and capital. Capitalist states also impose their influence without formally invading: through debt, investment pressure, sanctions, military alliances, international financial institutions, intelligence agencies, aid conditionality, and support for local ruling classes.

Revolutionary, anti-fascist, and reunification intervention

Not all military intervention is counterrevolutionary. Some interventions have been defended by communists, socialists, and anti-imperialists when they assisted anti-fascist struggle, defeated genocidal regimes, supported national liberation, or participated in struggles for reunification after colonial or imperial partition.

Such cases are usually judged by whether the intervention strengthens the independence of the oppressed people or replaces one domination with another. Even an initially defensible intervention can become reactionary if it turns into permanent occupation, plunder, annexation, or suppression of local self-determination.

The Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France, Cuba's military assistance to Angola against apartheid South Africa, Vietnam's overthrow of the Khmer Rouge, and communist-led struggles for reunification in Korea and Vietnam are often cited as examples where foreign or cross-border military force cannot be judged only by the fact that troops crossed a line. The political meaning depends on the history of occupation, partition, class struggle, colonialism, and foreign domination.

In Korea and Vietnam, the issue of reunification was central. Both countries were shaped by colonialism, foreign partition, rival state-building projects, and Cold War intervention. Anti-imperialists therefore often reject narratives that describe northern military action only as foreign aggression while treating U.S.-backed southern states as innocent expressions of national self-determination. The U.S. Department of State notes that Korea was temporarily divided at the 38th parallel after the Second World War by agreement between the United States and Soviet Union to oversee the removal of Japanese forces

Invitation and political legitimacy

A common argument is that a military action is not an invasion if some local force requests it. This is insufficient. Nearly every intervention has local allies.

• The United States intervened in Vietnam with the support of the South Vietnamese state.
• The Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan after requests from the Afghan communist government.
• Cuba intervened in Angola at the request of the MPLA government.
• Rwanda has intervened in Congo while backed by some Congolese factions.
• The United States supported the Afghan Mujahideen after sections of the mujahideen welcomed U.S., Pakistani, and Saudi backing against the Afghan communist government and the Soviet Union.
• The United States and United Nations intervened in Korea with the support of the South Korean government.
• The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and was initially welcomed by some Iraqis who opposed Saddam Hussein, only for the invasion to produce occupation, state collapse, sectarian violence, civil war, privatization, and long-term foreign domination.
• NATO intervened in Libya in 2011 with support from anti-Gaddafi forces.
• Pro-Mobutu and anti-Lumumba forces in the Congo in 1960, welcomed or benefited from Western support during the 1960 Congo Crisis, but their opposition to Patrice Lumumba did not make foreign intervention liberatory; anti-imperialists understand the crisis as a neocolonial intervention in which Western powers helped destroy Lumumba's government while protecting strategic and mineral interests in Congo, including copper, cobalt, manganese, and uranium.
• Some anti-Maduro Venezuelans welcomed the January 2026 U.S. operation against Nicolás Maduro.
• Some anti-Khamenei Iranians celebrated the U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed Ali Khamenei
• The United States carried out military campaigns against Japanese forces in Guam, the Philippines, and other Pacific territories while many people under Japanese occupation welcomed Japan's defeat.
• The United States supported Panama's separation from Colombia in 1903 while some Panamanian separatists welcomed U.S. backing.
• The Allied invasion of Normandy was welcomed by many French anti-fascists and resisted by Nazi occupiers.

In reactionary cases, local welcome can become collaborationism when local elites, armed factions, opposition figures, or comprador forces invite imperialist power against their own people. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya show how foreign-backed "liberation" can produce occupation, civil war, state collapse, militia rule, or long-term destabilization rather than genuine self-determination. Congo shows how anti-Lumumba and pro-Mobutu forces benefited from Western support in a crisis that helped destroy a popular anti-colonial government and opened the way to decades of dictatorship, while Venezuela shows how some opposition support for U.S. intervention did not prevent the intervention from becoming a violation of sovereignty and an attempt to control the country's political future.

A stricter liberal version of the invitation argument claims that foreign military action is not an invasion if the recognized government of the country requests or welcomes it. This also fails as a general rule, because recognition and state invitation do not automatically prove popular legitimacy or self-determination. The United States intervened in Vietnam with the support of the South Vietnamese government, but anti-imperialists still regard it as a foreign intervention because South Vietnam was a U.S.-backed anti-communist state fighting against a communist-led movement for national liberation and reunification.

The same problem appears in Korea. The South Korean government welcomed U.S. and United Nations military support during the Korean War, but that did not make the conflict purely domestic or erase the fact that foreign armies entered, fought, and later crossed the 38th parallel into the North. In divided, occupied, or civil-war contexts, an invitation from one recognized government may explain why foreign troops entered, but it does not settle whether the intervention was legitimate, popular, anti-imperialist, or destructive of self-determination. UN Security Council Resolution 83 recommended that member states provide assistance to the Republic of Korea after North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel

Invitation therefore matters, but does not settle the issue. The decisive questions are: who invited the foreign force, whether that force represents a legitimate popular government or liberation movement, whether the intervention supports self-determination, what the foreign army does, and whether it withdraws or imposes domination.

Occupation and aftermath

The aftermath of intervention is often as important as the initial justification. A military action may claim to stop oppression, but produce occupation, state collapse, economic dependency, sectarian violence, or permanent foreign bases.

Anti-imperialist analysis therefore asks whether the intervention leaves behind stronger sovereignty and popular power, or whether it produces dependency, privatization, repression, partition, or long-term imperial control. A foreign intervention that begins with a defensive, humanitarian, anti-fascist, or reunification justification can become reactionary if it turns into occupation or domination.

Types and examples

Reactionary invasions and interventions

Reactionary invasions and interventions are military, political, economic, or covert actions that strengthen imperialism, colonialism, settler colonialism, fascism, capitalism, counterrevolution, annexation, or foreign domination. These interventions may be presented as defensive, democratic, humanitarian, civilizing, anti-terrorist, anti-communist, or stabilizing, but their political content is judged by the class forces involved, the social order they defend, and the consequences for the people affected.

Imperialist and regime-change invasion

An imperialist invasion is a military invasion carried out to expand the power of an imperialist state through territory, resources, markets, military bases, regime change, strategic dominance, or control over another country's political economy. Imperialist invasions often present themselves as defensive, democratic, humanitarian, or civilizing, while their actual result is usually the destruction of sovereignty, expansion of foreign military power, privatization, corporate access, or the installation of governments dependent on imperialist support.

• U.S. invasion of Iraq: 2003 regime-change invasion that overthrew the Iraqi government, destroyed much of the Iraqi state, caused mass death and displacement, and expanded U.S. influence in West Asia.

• Gulf War: 1990–1991 war in which Iraq's annexation of Kuwait violated Kuwaiti sovereignty, but the U.S.-led response was still a major imperialist intervention involving bombing, ground war, oil politics, Gulf monarchy politics, and the expansion of U.S. military power in West Asia.

• NATO intervention in Libya: 2011 intervention presented as humanitarian protection, but used to overthrow the Libyan government, contributing to state collapse, militia rule, foreign interference, and long-term instability.

• U.S. invasion of Panama: 1989–1990 imperialist invasion, codenamed Operation Just Cause, in which the United States overthrew Manuel Noriega and reinforced U.S. dominance over a strategically important canal state under the stated justifications of protecting U.S. citizens, defending democracy, combating drug trafficking, and protecting the Panama Canal treaties.

Settler-colonial invasion

A settler-colonial invasion is a form of imperialist or colonial invasion aimed at replacing, displacing, or subordinating Indigenous peoples and taking their land for settlers. Settler-colonial invasion differs from ordinary military conflict because the goal is not only victory over another army, but the transformation of land, population, law, and sovereignty in favor of settlers.

• European conquest and colonization of the Americas: long inhumane process of invasions, settlement, enslavement, genocide, land theft, and colonial state-building that subordinated Indigenous peoples and created the settler-colonial foundations for later states such as the United States, Canada, and other settler republics.

• Portuguese colonization of Brazil: colonial and settler-colonial process beginning in the sixteenth century, involving Indigenous dispossession, plantation slavery, resource extraction, missionary rule, and the incorporation of Brazil into the Portuguese Empire.

• British colonization of Canada: settler-colonial process in which British imperial power expanded over Indigenous lands through conquest, treaties, settlement, displacement, and colonial state-building, later forming the basis of the Canadian settler state.

• British colonization of Australia: settler-colonial invasion beginning in 1788, followed by frontier wars, dispossession, massacres, and the imposition of British law over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands.

• French conquest and colonization of Algeria: settler-colonial invasion beginning with the French invasion of Algiers in 1830 and continuing through conquest, land seizure, European settlement, repression, and colonial rule until Algerian independence in 1962.

• Expansion of the United States: settler-colonial process of Indigenous removal, territorial conquest, treaty-breaking, settlement, and military expansion across North America.

• U.S. invasion of Mexico: settler-imperialist war waged by the Statesian settler republic from 1846 to 1848 that ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, through which Mexico ceded about 55 percent of its territory to the United States, opening large areas of Mexican and Indigenous land to U.S. settler expansion.

• Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom: 1893 settler-colonial and imperialist intervention in which U.S.-backed planter and business interests overthrew Queen Liliʻuokalani and the Hawaiian monarchy, placed her under house arrest, and cleared the way for U.S. annexation and colonial control despite mass Native Hawaiian opposition.

• Israeli invasions of neighboring territories: understood by anti-imperialists in the context of settler colonialism, regional domination, military occupation, and U.S.-backed Israeli power.

Colonial invasion and occupation

A colonial invasion is an invasion or conquest carried out to establish or expand colonial rule over another people. It may involve land seizure, racial hierarchy, forced labor, resource extraction, military repression, and the denial of sovereignty, often justified through the language of civilization, modernization, order, development, or protection.

• British colonization of India: colonial process in which British imperial power subordinated the Indian subcontinent through conquest, company rule, military repression, taxation, extraction, famine policy, and later direct Crown rule.

• French colonization of Indochina: colonial conquest and occupation of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia that imposed French imperial rule, plantation extraction, forced labor, taxation, and repression against anti-colonial movements.

• Japanese colonization of Taiwan: colonial occupation beginning after Japan acquired Taiwan from Qing China in 1895, involving military repression, assimilation policies, infrastructure development for imperial extraction, and incorporation into the Japanese Empire.

• Japanese colonization of Korea: colonial occupation formalized by Japan's annexation of Korea in 1910, involving land seizure, forced assimilation, repression of Korean nationalism, forced labor, and the use of Korea as a base for Japanese imperial expansion.

• Italian colonization of Somalia: colonial expansion beginning in the late nineteenth century, with Italy establishing protectorates and colonial rule over parts of Somali territory from 1889 onward.

• Ottoman imperial conquests: pre-capitalist imperial conquests that expanded Ottoman state power across parts of Southeast Europe, West Asia, and North Africa, involving military conquest, tribute, provincial rule, and the subordination of conquered peoples within an imperial order.

Fascist and Axis invasions

A fascist invasion is an invasion carried out by fascist states for conquest, racial domination, anti-communism, colonial expansion, or imperial power. Fascist invasions are among the clearest forms of reactionary and genocidal war because they are often wars of extermination, racial hierarchy, forced labor, anti-communism, and colonial domination.

• Italian invasion of Ethiopia / Abyssinia: fascist and colonial invasion from 1935 to 1936 involving chemical warfare, massacres, repression, and Ethiopian anti-colonial resistance.

• Italian invasion of Albania: fascist imperial invasion launched in April 1939, after which Albania became an Italian protectorate and King Zog fled the country.

• German invasion of Poland: fascist invasion launched in early September 1939 that began the Second World War in Europe and imposed brutal occupation.

• German invasion of France: fascist conquest launched in May 1940, followed by German occupation, the entry of German forces into Paris, and the establishment of the collaborationist Vichy regime.

• German invasion of the Soviet Union: genocidal fascist war of extermination launched on 22 June 1941 under Operation Barbarossa, involving anti-communism, racial domination, mass murder, starvation policy, and colonial conquest in Eastern Europe.

• Imperial Japan's invasion of China: imperialist, colonial, and fascistic war that escalated after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937, marked by massacres, occupation, forced labor, and mass atrocities.

• Imperial Japan's invasions of Southeast Asia and the Pacific: wars of imperial expansion across East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, involving colonial occupation, forced labor, resource extraction, puppet regimes, and military terror.

Annexationist and anti-communist invasions

An annexationist invasion is an invasion carried out to seize territory and absorb it into another state. In the modern period, annexationist invasions often overlap with anti-communism, imperialism, colonialism, or regional domination, especially when the invading state destroys a left-wing or anti-colonial government and replaces self-determination with military occupation.

• Indonesian invasion of Timor-Leste: 1975 invasion and annexation by Indonesia after Timor-Leste's move toward independence, carried out in an anti-communist Cold War context and followed by occupation, mass killing, famine, repression, and resistance by the Timorese people.

Counterrevolutionary intervention

Counterrevolutionary intervention is military, political, economic, or covert intervention aimed at destroying a revolution, socialist government, national liberation movement, or popular reform process. It may be carried out directly through invasion or indirectly through coups, proxy forces, death squads, sanctions, sabotage, aid programs, media operations, or political funding, and is usually justified as the defense of democracy, order, religion, markets, property, national security, or human rights.

• Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War: counterrevolutionary intervention from 1918 to 1920 by foreign powers in support of the White Armies and against the Bolshevik Revolution, often described as involving around fourteen foreign powers.

• Bay of Pigs invasion: U.S.-backed counterrevolutionary invasion in April 1961 intended to overthrow the Cuban Revolution, later acknowledged by the United States as a failed invasion after landing in Cuba.

• 1953 Iran coup: a covert intervention against Mohammad Mossadegh's government after Iran nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, commonly cited by anti-imperialists as an example of intervention serving oil interests and Western control.

• 1960 Congo Crisis and Lumumba Coup: case of imperialist and neocolonial intervention in a resource-rich country, with U.S. documents describing Katanga as central to Congo's copper, cobalt, manganese, and uranium production.

• 1973 Chile coup: counterrevolutionary intervention against Salvador Allende's Popular Unity government, whose program included nationalization of copper mines, agrarian reform, and socialization of major sectors of the economy.

• U.S. intervention in Vietnam: imperialist and counterrevolutionary intervention against communist-led reunification and national liberation.

• U.S.-led intervention in Korea: United States-led military intervention through the United Nations during the Korean War that preserved a U.S.-backed southern state, militarized Korea's division, and turned the peninsula into a major Cold War battlefield.

• United Nations invasion of northern Korea: U.S.-organized military offensive in which UN forces crossed the 38th parallel and invaded the North after the Inchon landing and recapture of Seoul, showing that the war cannot be reduced only to North Korea's initial crossing of the 38th parallel.

• Indonesian Mass Killings: 1965-1966 counterrevolutionary mass killing campaign and political transition in which the Indonesian military, led by Suharto, destroyed the Communist Party of Indonesia and displaced Sukarno's left-nationalist government; anti-imperialists treat it as a major Cold War intervention because U.S. Embassy files show that Statesian officials closely tracked the killings and saw the destruction of the Indonesian left as favorable to U.S. interests.

• 1954 Guatemala Coup: CIA-backed counterrevolutionary coup that overthrew Jacobo Árbenz after his government pursued land reform that threatened United Fruit Company interests; the coup helped destroy Guatemala's democratic reform process and contributed to decades of military rule, civil war, repression, and genocidal violence against Indigenous Maya communities.

• U.S. support for the Contras: 1980s proxy and counterrevolutionary intervention in which the Reagan administration funded, armed, and supported the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandinista government, with Congress later approving aid and the Iran-Contra scandal revealing covert efforts to continue support after restrictions on military aid.

• U.S. invasion of Grenada: 1983 counterrevolutionary intervention launched after the internal coup against Maurice Bishop and his assassination, with the Reagan administration framing the invasion as a rescue mission and restoration of order while anti-imperialists understand it as the destruction of the Grenadian Revolution and a U.S. blow against Cuban and socialist influence in the Caribbean.

• British suppression of the Malayan Emergency: counterinsurgency and colonial intervention from 1948 to 1960 in which British imperial forces fought communist-led guerrillas and anti-colonial forces in Malaya, combining military repression, population control, detention, and colonial emergency rule.

• Western support for post-Soviet capitalist restoration: counterrevolutionary political and economic process in which Western states and institutions supported the transition from the Soviet system toward capitalism, privatization, market shock therapy, and integration into the capitalist world economy; this should not be confused with the 1991 Soviet coup attempt, which was carried out by Soviet hardliners rather than Western-backed forces.

Humanitarian pretext

A humanitarian pretext is the use of humanitarian language to justify imperialist intervention. Imperialist states often claim to intervene to protect civilians, stop dictatorship, defend women, provide aid, prevent atrocities, or promote development, while the actual result may be regime change, state collapse, occupation, sanctions, dependency, or expanded imperial control.

Humanitarian intervention can also appear through non-military institutions. Aid programs, development agencies, and NGOs may provide real relief to people in crisis, but they can also function as tools of imperial influence when they are tied to political conditionality, regime-change networks, counterinsurgency, market restructuring, or the weakening of socialist and anti-imperialist governments.

• NATO bombing of Yugoslavia: 1999 bombing campaign presented by NATO as humanitarian intervention, but condemned by anti-imperialists as an imperialist attack that bypassed the United Nations and expanded NATO power; Michael Parenti described the bombing as a humanitarian pretext for Western domination.

• NATO intervention in Libya: 2011 intervention presented as humanitarian protection, but used to overthrow the Libyan government, contributing to state collapse, militia rule, foreign interference, and long-term instability.

USAID and development intervention

The United States Agency for International Development is often presented by liberals as a benevolent humanitarian institution that provides food, medicine, disaster relief, democratic assistance, and development aid. USAID was created under the Foreign Assistance Act framework during the Cold War, and U.S. foreign assistance law states that such assistance is intended to promote the foreign policy, security, and general welfare of the United States, while also assisting economic development and security abroad.

Anti-imperialists argue that USAID cannot be separated from the foreign policy of the United States. Even when USAID funds projects that provide real services, it can also serve broader imperial objectives by promoting pro-U.S. civil society networks, market reforms, privatization, anti-communist politics, and opposition to governments targeted by U.S. foreign policy. USAID oversight material describes democracy, human rights, and governance programming as supporting civil society, elections, governance, and human rights, showing how aid can directly enter political life in recipient countries.

Michael Parenti's broader critique of empire describes "maldevelopment" abroad as part of the hidden cost of U.S. domination and the victory of finance capital over democracy, a framework often applied by anti-imperialists to development agencies, aid conditionality, democracy-promotion institutions, and NGO networks operating in countries targeted by U.S. foreign policy.

• USAID and development programs: treated by liberals as nonviolent humanitarian assistance, but analyzed by anti-imperialists as part of a wider system of U.S. influence, especially when operating in countries targeted for regime change, sanctions, counterinsurgency, or anti-communist pressure.

Anti-fascist intervention

Anti-fascist intervention is military action aimed at defeating fascist aggression or occupation. Such interventions are distinguished from imperialist invasions by their target and context: they fight fascist regimes engaged in conquest, occupation, genocide, and anti-communist extermination, though anti-fascist victory can later be used by imperialist states to rewrite themselves as permanently virtuous while hiding their own colonialism, racism, and later counterrevolutionary wars.

• Allied invasion of Normandy: 1944 invasion in the military sense, but part of the anti-fascist war against Nazi occupation, making its political meaning different from fascist or imperialist wars of conquest.

• Allied invasion of fascist Italy: 1943 invasion that helped defeat Mussolini's fascist state and weaken the Axis powers.

• Soviet advance into Eastern Europe and Germany: helped defeat Nazi Germany and end fascist occupation, though later Soviet domination over parts of Eastern Europe remains a separate historical question.

Revolutionary internationalist intervention

Revolutionary internationalist intervention is military assistance given by a socialist or revolutionary state to another revolutionary or anti-colonial movement. Its legitimacy depends on whether it supports liberation and self-determination rather than domination, and whether it avoids creating a colony, seizing resources, imposing capitalist restructuring, installing permanent bases, or subordinating the assisted country to foreign control.

• Cuban intervention in Angola: Cuban military assistance from 1975 onward supported the MPLA government against apartheid South Africa and U.S.-backed counterrevolutionary forces, making it one of the clearest anti-imperialist examples of internationalist military assistance.

• Chinese intervention in the Korean War: 1950 intervention in which the Chinese People's Volunteers entered northern Korea after U.S.-led United Nations forces crossed the 38th parallel and advanced toward the Yalu River, with anti-imperialists often framing it as defensive internationalist support for the DPRK against U.S.-led escalation, especially as General Douglas MacArthur pushed to expand the war against China and submitted atomic-bomb target proposals for Korea, Manchuria, and other parts of China.

Anti-genocide intervention

An anti-genocide intervention is a military intervention justified by the prevention or ending of genocide or mass extermination. Such interventions can be defensible when they stop genocide, but they can still become complicated if they produce occupation, dependency, or domination after the initial overthrow of the genocidal force.

• Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia: 1978–1979 intervention that overthrew the Khmer Rouge and ended its genocidal rule, though the later Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia remains debated.
• Tanzanian invasion of Uganda: another 1978-1979 intervention, also known as the Uganda–Tanzania War or Kagera War, in which Tanzania and Ugandan exile forces overthrew Idi Amin's regime after Uganda invaded and claimed the Kagera Salient. Anti-imperialists often treat it differently from imperialist regime-change wars because it followed Ugandan aggression against Tanzania and helped remove a violent military dictatorship, though it still requires analysis of cross-border force, local allies, and the political aftermath.
• Allied invasions and advances into Nazi-occupied Europe: helped defeat fascist regimes responsible for genocide, occupation, and mass war, showing that military force can sometimes be defended when it stops fascism or genocide while still requiring analysis of the aftermath.

Reunification intervention

Reunification intervention is military action carried out in the name of reunifying a divided country. It is especially common in countries divided by colonialism, foreign occupation, imposed partition, or Cold War settlement, and is politically complicated because it can be framed either as national liberation or aggression depending on the history and class forces involved.

• North Korean invasion of South Korea: a contested reunification intervention in which North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel on 25 June 1950, but anti-imperialists argue that the war cannot be understood apart from Japanese colonialism, foreign partition, U.S. and Soviet occupation, southern anti-communist repression, Jeju 4·3, border clashes, and competing Korean state-building projects.

• North Vietnamese and NLF struggle in South Vietnam: understood by many anti-imperialists as a national liberation and reunification struggle against a U.S.-backed southern state rather than simple foreign aggression, since Vietnam was shaped by colonialism, partition, competing governments, foreign intervention, and reunification politics.

Proxy intervention

Proxy intervention occurs when a state intervenes indirectly by funding, arming, training, or directing local forces. This allows imperialist states to influence or destroy other countries while avoiding the appearance of direct invasion, especially when they want to weaken socialist or anti-imperialist governments without openly deploying large numbers of troops.

• U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen: a proxy intervention against the Afghan communist government and the Soviet Union that strengthened reactionary Islamist forces.

• Rwandan intervention in the Congo: often justified through local allies and security claims, but criticized for worsening war, resource plunder, and the violation of Congolese sovereignty.

Contested intervention

A contested intervention is an intervention whose political character is debated among anti-imperialists, socialists, liberals, nationalists, or international lawyers. These cases often involve mixed conditions: real aggression by one side, foreign manipulation by another, rival claims to self-determination, civil war, national oppression, or competing geopolitical interests.

• Iraqi invasion of Kuwait: a reactionary invasion and annexation attempt in 1990 that violated Kuwaiti sovereignty and triggered the Gulf War, while the U.S.-led response also remained an imperialist intervention involving bombing, oil politics, Gulf monarchy politics, and expanded U.S. military power in West Asia.

• Soviet intervention in Afghanistan: a heavily contested intervention beginning in 1979, because the Afghan communist government promoted land reform, literacy, women's rights, and secular modernization, while the Soviet military intervention also escalated the war, caused civilian suffering, foreignized the revolution, and helped produce a backlash strengthened by U.S., Pakistani, and Saudi support for the mujahideen.

• Russian invasion of Ukraine: a contested case in some left-wing spaces because of NATO expansion, the post-2014 conflict, and Russian claims about protecting Russian-speaking populations, but a consistent self-determination standard can recognize minority-rights and security concerns while still weighing heavily against invasion, annexation, and the denial of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Liberal, centrist, and reactionary views

Liberal and centrist views

Liberals and centrists often say that "all invasions are wrong" in the abstract. This can sound principled, and in many cases opposition to invasion is correct. However, anti-imperialists argue that this view often remains shallow when it refuses to ask why an invasion happened, what history produced it, what class forces were involved, whether the country was already divided by colonialism or foreign occupation, or whether the intervention was imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-genocide, or part of a national liberation struggle.

This does not mean that context automatically justifies invasion. Rather, it means that the first crossing of a border does not explain the whole political origin of a war. A serious analysis must distinguish between the trigger of a conflict and the deeper historical causes of that conflict.

Liberals and centrists may also argue that intervention is wrong because it means forcing one state's rule over another. Anti-imperialists generally agree that foreign domination is wrong, but also argue that capitalist states force their rule over other countries without formal invasion all the time. They do so through sanctions, debt, unequal trade, military bases, aid conditionality, coups, intelligence operations, corporate ownership, and support for local comprador elites.

Liberal interventionism and selective sovereignty

Liberals often defend intervention through the language of human rights, democracy, humanitarian aid, international law, development, women's rights, protection of civilians, and the defense of sovereignty. From this view, military intervention, sanctions, USAID, NGOs, peacekeeping, or democracy-promotion programs may be framed as flawed but necessary tools when they oppose dictatorships, provide relief to suffering populations, or support civil society.

This framework often treats the United States, NATO, and other imperialist powers as neutral moral actors rather than states with military alliances, corporations, intelligence agencies, geopolitical interests, and long records of colonial and counterrevolutionary violence. Interventions such as NATO in Libya, the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, sanctions against targeted states, or USAID activity in the Global South may therefore be presented as humanitarian or democratic even when they expand imperial influence, destabilize societies, or weaken self-determination.

Anti-imperialists argue that liberal interventionism applies sovereignty selectively. The U.S.-led Gulf War is often defended as legitimate because it expelled Iraq from Kuwait and restored Kuwaiti sovereignty, while comparable actions by socialist, communist-led, or anti-imperialist forces are usually reduced to aggression. North Korea's attempt to reunify Korea and remove U.S.-backed forces from the South is commonly treated as pure invasion, while the U.S.-led United Nations invasion of northern Korea after the crossing of the 38th parallel is framed as defense or liberation.

The same pattern appears in interpretations of the Second World War and the Cold War. Western Allied offensives against Nazi occupation are remembered as liberation, while Soviet advances against Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe are often remembered mainly as domination or occupation. Anti-imperialists do not argue that every Soviet, socialist, or anti-imperialist intervention was automatically progressive; rather, they argue that the same concrete standard should be applied to all cases. The real question is not whether an action is called invasion, liberation, defense, humanitarianism, or intervention, but whether it strengthens self-determination, defeats fascism or colonialism, or instead expands imperialism, occupation, counterrevolution, and foreign domination.

Land-area morality

Another liberal framing judges invasions mainly by the relative size of the states involved. In this view, a larger country invading a smaller country is treated as automatically wrong because land area is confused with power, while smaller states or non-state forces are treated as automatically more legitimate because they appear weaker on a map. Anti-imperialists reject this shortcut. Larger does not always mean more powerful, more imperialist, or more reactionary, and smaller does not automatically mean oppressed, progressive, or morally correct.

• Rwanda and Congo: The Democratic Republic of the Congo is over 91 times larger than Rwanda, but Rwanda has repeatedly intervened in eastern Congo through military involvement and support for armed forces such as M23. This shows why map size does not determine who is the aggressor, since a smaller state can still violate the sovereignty of a larger one or act through proxy forces, regional alliances, mineral interests, and Western backing.

• Finland and the Soviet Union: Finland was much smaller than the Soviet Union, and the Soviet invasion that began the Winter War in 1939 cannot be erased; however, the later Continuation War also shows why size alone is not enough, since Finland fought alongside Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944. A smaller state can still align with a larger fascist power or participate in an anti-communist war.

• France and Algeria: France was geographically smaller than Algeria, but French conquest beginning in 1830 created a colonial system that subordinated Algeria for more than a century. This shows that a smaller imperial state can dominate a larger colonized territory through military power, settlement, administration, and imperial institutions.

• Portugal and Brazil: Portugal was geographically smaller than Brazil, but Portuguese colonization made Brazil part of an overseas empire built through conquest, Indigenous dispossession, slavery, plantation production, and extraction. The colonizer was smaller on the map, but politically dominant through empire.

• The Netherlands and Indonesia: the Netherlands was geographically much smaller than Indonesia, but Dutch colonial rule subordinated the Indonesian archipelago through imperial administration, military force, forced cultivation, extraction, and repression. This shows that a small European state can still be an imperial power over a much larger colonized country.

• Ukraine and Russia: Ukraine is much smaller than Russia, but the legitimacy of Ukraine's sovereignty does not come merely from being smaller. The issue is self-determination, annexation, NATO expansion, minority rights, and the concrete effects of invasion and occupation, not map size alone.

• Afghan mujahideen and the Soviet Union: the Afghan mujahideen were weaker than the Soviet Union in conventional state power, but that did not make them automatically progressive. Many mujahideen forces were reactionary Islamist groups backed by the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia against the Afghan communist government and the Soviet Union, showing that smaller or weaker forces can still serve counterrevolutionary and imperialist projects.

• China and Taiwan Province: Taiwan is much smaller than the People's Republic of China, but Taiwan's modern political history also includes the brutal Kuomintang regime that retreated to the island after the Chinese Civil War, massacred suspected leftists and dissidents during the White Terror, suppressed revolts such as the February 28 uprising, jailed political opponents, repressed communist and socialist organizers, and ruled through decades of anti-communist martial law. The real issue involves the unresolved Chinese Civil War, the legacy of Japanese colonialism and KMT rule, U.S. military and diplomatic support for Taiwan, the One China framework, and the question of whether Taiwan is being used as a forward base in U.S. containment of China; anti-imperialists therefore distinguish between genuine popular self-determination and imperialist use of Taiwan against the PRC.

• China and Hong Kong: Hong Kong is much smaller than mainland China, but this does not make Hong Kong a colonized country separate from China in the same sense as Algeria under France or India under Britain. Hong Kong was a British colony returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 under the "one country, two systems" framework, so anti-imperialists distinguish between democratic grievances inside Hong Kong and Western attempts to frame Hong Kong as a small nation oppressed by a larger foreign country.

• Germany and the Soviet Union: Nazi Germany was much smaller than the Soviet Union in land area, but it was the aggressor in Operation Barbarossa and launched a genocidal war of extermination against the Soviet peoples. This shows that a smaller state can still be the reactionary invading force, while a larger state can be defending itself against fascist conquest, colonial settlement, mass murder, and anti-communist extermination.

• Italy and their larger African colonies: Italy was geographically smaller than Libya, Somalia, and Ethiopia, but Italian colonialism and fascism made Italy the imperial aggressor in each case. In Libya, Italian forces used mass deportations, executions, forced labor, starvation, and concentration camps during the so-called "pacification" of Cyrenaica; in Somalia, Italian colonial rule imposed racial hierarchy, forced labor, military repression, and camp systems such as Danane near Mogadishu; and in Ethiopia, Fascist Italy's 1935 invasion involved mustard gas, bombing, massacres, concentration camps, executions, and racial terror. These cases show that a smaller European state could still dominate larger African territories through colonial power, fascist violence, and imperial military organization.

• Germany and larger African colonies: Before the Great War, Germany was geographically smaller than both Namibia and Tanzania, but German imperialism made it the colonial aggressor in German South West Africa and German East Africa. In Namibia, German colonial rule produced the Herero and Nama genocide, including massacres, forced labor, desert expulsions, and concentration camps such as Shark Island; in Tanzania, German colonial rule provoked the Maji Maji War and was answered with scorched-earth repression, executions, famine, and mass death. These cases show that a smaller European state could still dominate larger African territories through colonial administration, racial rule, military terror, concentration camps, and genocidal violence.

• Japan and China: Japan was and still is geographically much smaller than China, but Imperial Japan was the invading imperial power during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the wider Second World War in Asia. Japanese forces occupied large parts of China, created puppet regimes, carried out massacres, forced labor, sexual slavery, biological warfare, and mass atrocities such as the Nanjing Massacre, where Japanese troops invaded Nanjing in 1937 and carried out a campaign of mass killing. This shows that a smaller island empire could still wage colonial and imperial war against a much larger country through militarism, occupation, racial ideology, and fascistic imperial violence.

A similar argument appeared in fascist propaganda during the Second World War, when Nazi Germany tried to frame Britain as hypocritical by comparing Germany's territorial ambitions to the much larger British Empire. The existence of British imperialism was real, but Nazi Germany's criticism of British empire did not make Nazism anti-imperialist or progressive. Anti-imperialist analysis therefore cannot stop at land area, state size, or who appears smaller. It must ask what class forces are involved, whether the action supports self-determination, whether it serves colonial or imperial power, and what political order it creates.

Bigger countries can be more revolutionary while smaller countries can be more reactionary. Size does not equal morality, legitimacy, self-determination, anti-imperialism, or political correctness. The decisive question is not who looks bigger on a map, but which side serves liberation, fascism, colonialism, imperialism, counterrevolution, or popular sovereignty.

Reconstruction vs Destabilization

Liberals and centrists may accuse anti-imperialists of using a double standard when they oppose U.S. destabilization of the Global South while treating the postwar invasions and occupations of Germany and Japan differently. This comparison ignores the different historical conditions involved. Germany and Japan were defeated imperialist powers after the Second World War, not poor colonized countries trying to escape dependency through socialism, land reform, nationalization, or anti-colonial struggle. The U.S.-led occupations of Germany and Japan did impose foreign control, but they also rebuilt both states as advanced capitalist allies and anti-communist front-line powers in the Cold War.

Anti-imperialists therefore distinguish reconstruction from destabilization. Germany and Japan were not destroyed in the same political sense as Libya, Cuba, Congo, Nicaragua, Haiti, Indonesia, or other Global South countries targeted for coups, sanctions, proxy war, blockade, regime change, or counterrevolution. They were politically rebooted; demilitarized, reorganized, and integrated into the U.S.-led capitalist bloc, partly as strategic barriers against the Soviet Union, socialism, and anti-colonial movements. This does not make the occupations neutral or anti-imperialist, but it shows why comparing them to the destruction of anti-imperialist or socialist projects in the Global South is a false equivalence.

In this sense, the issue is not a double standard, but historical nuance. Postwar Germany and Japan were reconstructed as wealthy Global North capitalist pawns, while many Global South interventions targeted countries attempting national liberation, socialist development, land reform, resource sovereignty, or independence from imperialist control. Liberal discourse often collapses these different histories into the vague word "destabilization," erasing the difference between rebuilding defeated imperialist states for Cold War capitalism and destroying poorer anti-imperialist states or movements for challenging Western power.

Reactionary interventionism

Reactionaries often defend intervention through nationalism, militarism, civilizational racism, anti-communism, anti-migrant politics, religious chauvinism, or settler-colonial security rhetoric. They may argue that imperialist states have the right to invade, bomb, sanction, or occupy other countries in order to defend national greatness, borders, markets, "Western civilization", or allies.

Reactionary arguments are usually more openly militarist than liberal arguments. Where liberals may justify intervention as humanitarian or democratic, reactionaries often justify it as punishment, conquest, revenge, deterrence, or the defense of empire.

In both cases, anti-imperialists argue that the oppressed people themselves, not imperialist states, should determine their own future.

Cold War origin narratives

Liberals and reactionaries often summarize the Korean War with the phrase that "North Korea invaded South Korea." The narrow factual claim is true: North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel and launched a coordinated conventional invasion in June 1950. However, anti-imperialists argue that this framing becomes misleading when it is used to explain the entire war as a simple case of communist aggression against an innocent democratic South Korea.

This narrative relies on single-date framing. It treats 25 June 1950 as the whole origin of the war while stripping away Japanese colonialism, foreign occupation, the artificial division of Korea, class conflict, People’s Committees, anti-communist repression, border clashes, and the authoritarian character of Syngman Rhee's southern regime. It also presents South Korea only as a victim while ignoring massacres, repression, anti-communist terror, and the suppression of Korean leftists and civilians before the war became a full conventional war.

A serious anti-imperialist analysis can acknowledge that North Korea launched the first major conventional invasion while still rejecting the claim that North Korea alone created the Korean War. Korea had been divided after Japan's defeat by foreign occupation zones, the 38th parallel was an externally imposed military line rather than an ancient Korean border, and both Korean governments claimed to represent the whole peninsula. The war grew out of occupation, partition, class struggle, repression, uprisings, and competing projects of national reunification.

The point is not that North Korea did nothing wrong. The point is that South Korea and the United States were not innocent guardians of democracy simply because North Korea crossed the line first. The trigger of a war is not the same as the origin of a war. North Korea crossed the 38th parallel first in 1950, but the Korean War was created by years of occupation, partition, repression, and class conflict before that line was crossed.

Invitation-based justification

A common liberal or reactionary argument is that foreign troops are not invading if some people in the affected country welcome them. This argument fails because almost every intervention has local allies. South Vietnam welcomed U.S. forces; the Afghan communist government requested Soviet help; the MPLA welcomed Cuba in Angola; some Iraqis welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003; French anti-fascists welcomed the Allied invasion of Normandy; and some Congolese factions have welcomed Rwandan involvement.

Liberals may argue that intervention is legitimate when the recognized government welcomes foreign troops, but the U.S. intervention in Vietnam shows why this is insufficient: South Vietnam welcomed U.S. forces, yet the war was still a foreign military intervention against a communist-led national liberation and reunification struggle.

The Korean War shows the same problem. South Korea welcomed U.S. and UN military intervention, but that did not mean foreign armies were absent or that the intervention stopped being an intervention. A foreign army can be invited by a recognized government and still function as a decisive outside force in a civil war, partition conflict, or national struggle.

The existence of local support does not automatically determine whether a military action is justified. It only raises further questions about legitimacy, class character, self-determination, and consequences.

Equivalence between all interventions

Another mistaken view is that all military interventions are morally identical. This erases the difference between fascist conquest, imperialist regime change, anti-fascist liberation, anti-genocide intervention, internationalist assistance to a revolutionary government, and contested reunification struggles.

A consistent anti-imperialist position does not treat Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union, the United States invading Iraq, Cuba assisting Angola, North Korea crossing the 38th parallel, and the Allies invading Nazi-occupied France as politically equivalent. The military form may be similar, but the class forces, historical context, and political meaning may be very different.

Humanitarian justification

Liberals often argue that humanitarian intervention is necessary to stop atrocities, deliver aid, protect women, or support democracy. Reactionaries may use the same humanitarian language selectively, but combine it with racist or militarist narratives about "civilizing" other countries or defeating supposedly backward peoples.

Anti-imperialists argue that humanitarian claims must be tested against material results. If an intervention produces occupation, privatization, military bases, state collapse, sanctions, dependency, or foreign domination, its humanitarian language should not be accepted at face value.

Humanitarian claims are especially suspicious when used selectively by imperialist states that ignore or support atrocities committed by their allies. Parenti's criticism of NATO's war against Yugoslavia is one example of a left-wing critique of humanitarian language being used to justify bombing and imperial domination

If the Gulf War is not considered an intervention because it was framed as liberating Kuwait, then NATO's interventions in Yugoslavia and Libya could also be dismissed as non-interventions because their supporters framed them as humanitarian, making the term politically meaningless.

Anti-imperialist criteria

A military intervention can be judged by the following questions:

• Does it support or violate the self-determination of the people affected?
• Is self-determination being claimed by an oppressed nation, or by a settler-colonial, imperialist, occupying, or dominant force?
• Who requested the intervention, and does that force represent a legitimate popular government, liberation movement, puppet regime, elite clique, occupation authority, comprador class, or foreign-dependent faction?
• Does the intervention fight fascism, colonialism, apartheid, genocide, or foreign-backed counterrevolution?Does the intervention attack a revolutionary, socialist, anti-colonial, independent, or popular government?
• Which class forces are strengthened: workers, peasants, oppressed peoples, and national liberation movements, or capitalists, landlords, settlers, comprador elites, and imperialist states?
• Is the intervention defensive and limited, or does it seek regime change, annexation, permanent bases, market access, resources, or geopolitical dominance?
• Is the force used proportionate and directed against military targets, or does it rely on collective punishment, bombing, sanctions, starvation, terror, or civilian destruction?
• Does the intervening power withdraw and strengthen sovereignty, or does it occupy, annex, privatize, install bases, control resources, or impose dependency?
• Does the intervention expand liberation and popular power, or does it produce collapse, dependency, dictatorship, civil war, or imperial domination?
• Is humanitarian, democratic, development, self-defense, anti-terrorism, or reunification language being used to hide counterrevolutionary, imperialist, settler-colonial, or capitalist goals?
• Are the same standards being applied consistently to allies and enemies, including cases where the first conventional attack hides a longer history of colonialism, partition, occupation, repression, civil conflict, and foreign interference?

Legacy

Military intervention is not automatically progressive or reactionary based only on the word "invasion". The political character of an intervention depends on the class forces involved, the relation to imperialism, the question of self-determination, the target of the intervention, the legitimacy of any invitation, and the consequences for the people affected.

Self-determination is a progressive principle when it refers to oppressed nations, colonized peoples, Indigenous peoples, occupied peoples, and workers struggling against domination. It becomes reactionary when settler-colonial, imperialist, or fascist forces use the same language to defend domination over others.

Imperialist, colonial, settler, fascist, and counterrevolutionary interventions are reactionary because they crush self-determination and defend domination. Some interventions, however, may be defensible when they help defeat fascism, apartheid, genocide, colonialism, or foreign-backed counterrevolution, especially when requested by a legitimate popular government or liberation movement and when they do not become occupation, plunder, or permanent domination.

Reunification struggles are especially contested because they often involve countries divided by colonialism, foreign occupation, imposed partition, or Cold War settlement. North Korea's invasion of South Korea and North Vietnam's victory over South Vietnam cannot be understood only through the fact that one side crossed a border or partition line. They must be analyzed through the history of occupation, repression, class struggle, national liberation, foreign intervention, and the political character of the states involved.

The central question is therefore not only whether a military action is called an invasion, but whether it defeats domination and restores self-determination, or whether it becomes domination itself.

See also

Imperialism

Anti-imperialism

War

Invasion

Military occupation

Invasion of Iraq

War in Afghanistan

Vietnam War

Korean War

Bay of Pigs invasion

Cuban intervention in Angola

Philippine-American War

Mexican-American War

Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

Gulf War

National liberation

Self-determination

Counterrevolution

Fascism

Settler colonialism

United States Agency for International Development

Michael Parenti