The phrase "a war of intervention" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a conflict where one country intervenes in the affairs of another, often for political or humanitarian reasons.
Example: "The ongoing conflict has been characterized as a war of intervention, with foreign powers seeking to influence the outcome."
Alternatives: "interventionist war" or "war of interference".
No case for intervening in Syria Regarding "The perils of piecemeal Intervention" (Views, March 10): Jonathan Tepperman argues for a "war of choice" by proposing armed intervention in Syria.
"Human rights" are a useful rule of thumb for judging a country's moral performance, but a wobbly basis for wars of intervention.
If wars of intervention are to be a serious part of tomorrow's agenda, they will have to be based on a simple, straightforward and more or less universally accepted set of rules.The rules must be countable on the fingers of one hand, because any larger number will lead to complaints that one rule contradicts or qualifies another rule.
But this is not a reason for saying, as some people do, that wars of intervention should never be launched.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention.
They want no more wars of intervention, and they want the money saved.
Today's wars of intervention are like medieval conflicts, causes so lofty that mere mortals cannot see the point.
And why the man Barack Obama called the "last great liberator of the 20th century" was outspoken in his opposition to US and British wars of intervention and occupation, from Kosovo to Iraq – damning the US as a "threat to world peace", guilty of "unspeakable atrocities".
Nevertheless, the prime purpose of intervention should be to help an oppressed people in a troubled land, not just to further one's own interests.Who dares, winsThere are complicated calculations to be made, and obvious dangers to be faced, if wars of intervention are part of the agenda of the next 20 or 30 years.
