The so-called "Clinton Doctrine" justifies invasion not as a tool of empire and domination, but of liberation. When atrocities are ongoing, the moral duty of heavily armed, more principled nations is to intervene and forcibly bring an end to the wrongdoing. Under this doctrine, humanitarian intervention provides a justification for a stronger country to attack a much weaker one that poses no threat to it.
Like the idea of a "peace-keeping force", this notion harbours a contradiction. As Ivan Illich predicted in Yugoslavia, the doctrine would eventually lead to bombing nations into respecting human rights. Since our childhood days, most of us are familiar with the idea of adults going in to break up children's fights, but nations are not children and this is not a suitable way to consider foreign policy.
Wikipedia reports in its section on the "Obama Doctrine" that "As president, an important part of Barack Obama's foreign policy has been reaching out to Muslim countries". This is an apparently reference to his speech at Cairo University, where he "called for reform of undemocratic countries from within". This doesn't seem to fit with his instigation and escalation of armed conflicts around the globe such as in Afghanistan and Libya.
As Zero Hedge observed in April 2018: “Suddenly, children in Syria matter a lot to the West, while Yemen's child victims are rarely ever mentioned. Suddenly there’s an urgent moral issue being rushed through the court of public opinion. This has all the hallmarks of the prior propaganda campaigns we’ve seen before. Scant evidence, immediate assignment of blame, and a quick rush to military action before anybody can really properly question the train of events.” 
False flag attacks
- Full article: False flag
- Full article: False flag
Where there is no humanitarian crisis, "humanitarian intervention" is not a valid reason for invasion. A fairly regular pattern has been either the direct instigation or the indirect causation of such a crisis - or at least of something that could be spun as a crisis for domestic consumption by a compliant commercially-controlled media. One recent example of such a false flag attack is the Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack of 21 August 2013.
There is evidence that after a bunch of formulaic and mendacious efforts to use the "humanitarian intervention" card as an excuse for imperialistic resource wars, the public of would-be aggressor nations is seeing through it and protesting, sometimes before war plans has been announced. Most recently, the False flag chemical attack failed to incite support for a war on Syria in 2013. This could be interpreted as a sign of increasing sophistication on the part of commercially-controlled media consumers, or - less optimistically - simply because the formula has been so heavily overused in recent years, and the attempt to provoke a Syrian crisis was so soon after an earlier application of the "humanitarian intervention" card in Libya.
|Refugees International||“If I’m reading in the newspaper about a crisis somewhere in the world, it is of great consolation to me to know that, if not at this moment, then very soon I will be hearing from Refugees International about how we should think about the crisis and more importantly what we should do about it.””||Samantha Power|
|Document:Gilbert Achcar's Defense of Humanitarian Intervention||article||8 April 2011||Edward S. Herman||Astute and informed observations on the 2011 Libyan 'Humanitarian intervention' by US/NATO powers and the Rwanda Genocide of 1994. It is a good illustration of the gullibility of the well-meaning Western Liberal Left.|
|Document:Gilbert Achcar's Fantasy World||article||17 March 2011||Stephen Gowans|
|Document:Libya and the Return of Humanitarian Imperialism||article||8 March 2011||Jean Bricmont|
|Document:Obama’s Humanitarianism as Window-Dressing for the US “Deep State” Agenda - The Case of Syria||article||18 June 2013||Elizabeth Woodworth|
|Document:The US-Saudi Deal on Libya||article||2 April 2011||Pepe Escobar|
|Document:War on Libya: Official Lies and Misconceptions||article||25 March 2011||James Petras|
|A rundown of the principal falsehood propagated by the official narrative on Libya|
|File:Afghanistan - Exit vs Engagement.pdf||paper||Unknown|
|File:Bloody Vengeance in Sirte.pdf||report||October 2012||A harrowing report on the final days of Muammar Gaddafi, notable less for its background analysis of the 2011 NATO sponsored Libyan conflict, or its recommendations which are standard fare but pointedly fail to even mention Foreign/NATO culpability which is assumed to have been legitimate, but rather for an authoritative account of just one small instance of the raw barbarity which NATO played such a major part in enabling - under the banner of 'Humanitarian Intervention'.|
An official example
|2011 Attacks on Libya|