Evaluating Intervention Success
This lesson provides a framework for evaluating the success or failure of international intervention, drawing on the case studies from the previous lesson and broader evidence. It addresses the Edexcel Enquiry Question: "What is the role of global governance in promoting development and human rights?" This is a critical lesson for exam preparation because evaluation — the ability to weigh evidence and reach supported conclusions — is what distinguishes the highest-level answers.
What Does "Success" Mean?
The first challenge in evaluating intervention is defining success. Different stakeholders define it differently, and what looks like success from one perspective may look like failure from another:
| Stakeholder | Definition of Success | Example |
|---|
| Intervening government | Achieving stated objectives at acceptable political and financial cost | USA in Iraq: remove Saddam and WMDs — militarily achieved, but WMDs didn't exist |
| Target population | Improved security, rights, living standards and governance | Sierra Leoneans experienced lasting peace and development gains |
| International community | Upholding international law, preventing atrocities, maintaining stability | Libya: civilians initially protected, but long-term stability destroyed |
| Human rights organisations | Protection and expansion of human rights for all | Afghanistan: women's rights expanded during intervention, then eliminated after withdrawal |
| Regional neighbours | Stability, absence of refugee flows, absence of spillover conflict | Libya's neighbours suffered weapons proliferation and refugee flows |
| Domestic opposition | Quick resolution with minimal casualties and cost | UK public initially supported Sierra Leone but turned against Iraq |
The Problem of Counterfactuals
Evaluating intervention requires considering the counterfactual — what would have happened without intervention. This is inherently speculative but essential for honest assessment:
- Would Gaddafi have committed mass atrocities in Benghazi without NATO intervention? Almost certainly, based on his rhetoric and the regime's track record — but we cannot know the exact scale.
- Would Sierra Leone's war have ended without British intervention? Possibly, but the RUF was advancing on Freetown, the UN peacekeeping force had been humiliated, and the government was on the verge of collapse.
- Would Rwanda's genocide have been prevented by early intervention? General Dallaire believed that 5,000 well-armed troops deployed early could have prevented the worst of the killing. Other analysts dispute this, arguing the genocide was too well-organised and decentralised to stop with a small force.
- Would Iraq be better off under Saddam? This is the most uncomfortable counterfactual. Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed tens of thousands (including the Anfal campaign against Kurds, 1986–1989, which killed an estimated 100,000), but Iraq since 2003 has experienced more total deaths, displacement and destruction.
Exam Tip: Acknowledging the counterfactual problem demonstrates sophisticated analytical thinking. An answer that states "we cannot know with certainty what would have happened without intervention, but based on available evidence..." is more convincing and more honest than one that makes absolute claims.
Criteria for Evaluating Success
1. Protection of Civilians
The most fundamental criterion. Did the intervention reduce civilian casualties and protect populations from mass atrocities?
- Sierra Leone: Yes. British intervention ended the RUF's campaign of terror. Civilian casualties effectively ceased after the intervention. The population overwhelmingly welcomed the British forces.
- Libya: Mixed. The immediate threat to Benghazi was averted, but the subsequent civil war, militia violence and state collapse caused ongoing civilian suffering. An estimated 15,000+ people have been killed in Libya since 2011.
- Rwanda: Catastrophic failure. The international community's refusal to intervene allowed 800,000+ deaths in 100 days.
- Iraq: Net negative. More Iraqi civilians have died since 2003 than were killed by Saddam's regime in its final decade. The destruction of infrastructure (water treatment, electricity, hospitals) caused immense civilian suffering.
- Afghanistan: During the intervention, civilian protection was mixed — NATO operations killed thousands of civilians through air strikes and night raids, even as overall security improved. After the withdrawal, the humanitarian crisis deepened dramatically.
2. Political Stability and Governance
Did the intervention lead to stable, effective governance?
- Sierra Leone: Yes. Four successful democratic elections since 2002; peaceful transfers of power; functioning (if imperfect) state institutions. Sierra Leone demonstrates that democratic governance can emerge from even the most brutal conflict — given sustained international support.
- Afghanistan: Temporary. Democratic governance existed during the intervention but collapsed immediately upon withdrawal. The institutions were not self-sustaining — the Afghan army of 300,000 troops evaporated within days because it had been hollowed out by corruption, ghost soldiers (soldiers on the payroll who did not exist) and a lack of motivation.
- Libya: No. Two rival governments, hundreds of militias, no functioning central authority. Libya has been in a state of political fragmentation since 2014 and has failed to hold planned elections.
- Iraq: Partially. Iraq has a functioning (though deeply corrupt and sectarian) democratic government and has held multiple elections, but political violence and instability continue. The political system is dominated by sectarian and ethnic divisions that the invasion exacerbated.
3. Development Outcomes
Did the intervention improve development indicators — HDI, life expectancy, education, healthcare?
graph LR
A["PRE-INTERVENTION<br/>DEVELOPMENT LEVEL"] --> B{"INTERVENTION"}
B --> C["SIERRA LEONE<br/>HDI: 0.252 → 0.477<br/>LE: 38 → 55 years<br/>CLEAR IMPROVEMENT"]
B --> D["AFGHANISTAN<br/>HDI: 0.340 → 0.462 (peak)<br/>→ reversed after 2021<br/>GAINS REVERSED"]
B --> E["LIBYA<br/>HDI: 0.755 → 0.718<br/>GDP halved<br/>DETERIORATION"]
B --> F["IRAQ<br/>HDI: 0.573 → 0.686<br/>Slow improvement<br/>amid conflict<br/>MIXED"]
style C fill:#2e7d32,color:#fff
style D fill:#e65100,color:#fff
style E fill:#c62828,color:#fff
style F fill:#f57f17,color:#000
4. Human Rights
Did the intervention improve the protection of human rights?
- Sierra Leone: Significant improvement. The Special Court prosecuted war criminals; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission addressed past abuses; press freedom and political rights improved substantially. FGM remains prevalent (approximately 83%), demonstrating that intervention alone does not solve all human rights challenges.
- Afghanistan (during intervention): Significant temporary improvement — women's education, media freedom, political participation, expansion of civil society. All reversed after 2021.
- Libya: Net deterioration. Open slave markets emerged for the first time in decades. Militia violence, arbitrary detention and torture became widespread. Human trafficking and smuggling networks exploited the lawless environment.
- Iraq: Mixed. Saddam's extreme repression ended, but sectarian violence, ISIS atrocities and government abuses created new categories of violation. Abu Ghraib prison scandal (2004) severely damaged the credibility of the US as a defender of human rights.
5. Regional Stability
Did the intervention contribute to stability in the surrounding region?
- Sierra Leone: Largely positive. The end of the war removed a major source of instability in West Africa and reduced the flow of weapons and fighters across borders. Neighbouring Liberia also eventually achieved peace (2003).
- Libya: Extremely negative. Weapons from Gaddafi's arsenals fuelled conflicts across the Sahel — Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Chad all experienced increased instability. Libya became a launch pad for irregular migration to Europe (an estimated 600,000+ migrants passed through Libya between 2014 and 2023). The Tuareg rebellion in Mali (2012) and subsequent French intervention were directly linked to the Libyan intervention.
- Iraq: Extremely negative. The Iraq war destabilised the entire Middle East, contributed to the rise of ISIS (which at its peak controlled an area the size of the UK), strengthened Iran's regional influence and exacerbated sectarian tensions across the region.
- Rwanda (non-intervention): The genocide and subsequent refugee flows directly contributed to two wars in the DRC (1996–1997, 1998–2003) that killed an estimated 5.4 million people — the deadliest conflict since World War II. The failure to intervene in Rwanda had catastrophic regional consequences that lasted decades.
Short-Term vs Long-Term Assessment
One of the most important distinctions in evaluating intervention is between short-term and long-term outcomes: