Interventions aren’t a result of US adventurism but a response to human rights abuses---empiral studies prove.

Conclusion Since the US government indeed has taken action against some countries but not others, the academic and policy community are puzzled with the question of what precipitates US military intervention.24 Previous studies include limited systematic research about the causal factors that underlie the use of the US armed forces abroad, so this study fills the gap. The present research finds that, beneath the greater consciousness concerning promotion of democracy and combating terrorism, human rights abuses emerge as the consistent trait among states that experience US military intervention. This finding therefore lends credence to the Liberal Hypothesis about human rights, especially in contrast to the Realist Hypothesis regarding terrorism. This finding is also in line with the official position of US Department of State: ‘‘The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’’25 The empirical evidence of this study and the State Department statement led us to believe that the United States has a sustained interest in promoting human rights abroad rather than exclusively pursuing its security interests. Of course, our assessment counteracts the widespread popular belief regarding US intervention as self-serving adventurism. It is possible that high-profile interventions that appear linked to adventurism, such as Vietnam or Iraq, have overshadowed the overall pattern.