There are dozens of examples used in the literature to develop lessons-learned surveys of the difficulties of external humanitarian interventions. Here the normal concept of ‘interventions’ means external, state-based, usually military interventions into places and events that entail activities generating violent consequences across jurisdictional borders. My argument here is that intervention is currently framed by increasingly abstract practices in such a way as to inevitably undermine humanitarian intervention efforts, however well intentioned. Materially we now live in the age of drones and guided missiles, commanded by communications technologies that abstract time and space, that disembody the war-machine, and unsettle the boundaries between combat and assassination (laid out in Chapter 3). Ideationally, we now pick selectively through the enumerated sections of abstract codes of conduct (such as R2P) while emptying out virtue-based ethics through passionate speeches in parliament or congress about the need to act in the name of ‘humanity’. This does not mean intervention should not occur – but it does suggest that the terms of intervention have to be fundamentally changed.