John Stuart Mill on military intervention

I am currently reading a lot of theoretical works on war, in preparation for qualifying exams that must be passed before I start my dissertation. Because I am encountering so much that interests me, I've decided to post some diverse nuggets that I think you might find interesting, as well. I'm going to start today with John Stuart Mill, but others will be coming. None of this represents (yet) a well-thought philosophy on war by me--just food for thought right now. Mill was a political realist--we'll hear later from political socialists, liberals, and pacifists.

Speaking of aggression, Mill says it “would be a great mistake to export freedom to a foreign people that was not in a position to win it on its own.” Otherwise the intervention would either create another oppressive government, simply collapse in an ensuing civil war, or the interveners would have to continually send in foreign support, so the government would be a puppet government that would reflect the wills and interests of the intervening state.

If the people welcome an intervention or refuse to resist, something less than aggression has occurred. But we cannot make those judgments reliably in advance. We should assume that nationals will protect their state—even if the state is not just, it’s their state, not ours.
“All the injustices, therefore, that do justify a domestic revolution do not always justify a foreign intervention. Domestic revolutions need to be left to domestic citizens. Foreign interventions to achieve a domestic revolution are inauthentic, ineffective, and likely to cause more harm than they eliminate.”

I have taken the text from Michael W. Doyle's Wars of War and Peace, Norton 1997.