Why doesn't military intervention in foreign conflicts work? Or does it?

2016-09-02T02:16:09-04:00

The human capital and financial costs of long-term military intervention is extremely steep. Have we built our military to fight, or is there a real expectation that we nation build too? Are we resourced to nation build? The reality is obvious, but I am not sure if the end result is expected, predicted or even understood at the time of deployment. We all know the definition of insanity...

Response by SFC William Farrell made Sep 2 at 2016 2:18 AM

2016-09-02T02:18:24-04:00

Very interesting theory COL Lee Flemming

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2016 2:29 AM

2016-09-02T02:29:34-04:00

COL Lee Flemming, Sir so true are your thoughts on what we actually do and what happens later on In today's society, we expect our Nations Armed Forces to come to the aid of other Countries in need of help. But should we also bear the burden of making that Country a democracy. In my opinion, no. Why? Because our Armed Forces are not meant to be building Nations after it falls to the way side. J.K.Kaupe, Jr.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025 made Sep 2 at 2016 2:51 AM

2016-09-02T02:51:58-04:00

COL Lee Flemming The results are obvious. The military accomplishes their assigned mission. Then, the politicians enter in w/ grandiose concepts.

Small unit actions prevail. ('Horse Soldiers'). The Big Army, the state department and the CIA all wish to take a leak on the fire plug also.

Until we achieve some modicum of cooperation between our agencies and Intel providers we will never have a lasting effect.

When we do set a country 'up'; Japan and Korea for instance, they are only too quick to challenge us on aspects of trade and prohibitions of product. Any sense of gratitude or future cooperation becomes mired in their successes!

Isolationism is no answer, accountability might be, if we possessed the fortitude to demand accountability.

Response by COL Lee Flemming made Sep 2 at 2016 6:22 AM

2016-09-02T06:22:03-04:00

This is a useful link to reference past interventions. Did Dr. Grossman miss any?

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890:

Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Sep 2 at 2016 6:30 AM

2016-09-02T06:30:08-04:00

I think the military does its job and does it well. Then the politicians step in and apologize and return most of the areas to the same state we found then in. No real strategy in an exit plan. The biggest obstacle we face is in most areas we have been in since 1991 don't share our values and have always been ruled. It is about survival for them and not so much the freedom to chose.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Sep 2 at 2016 6:41 AM

2016-09-02T06:41:49-04:00

The purpose of war is to destroy an enemies ability to fight once diplomacy has failed and it is determined it is in our national interests to send in the armed forces to execute the mission of taking them out. Sometimes there are coalitions/allies, sometimes not.

The definition of war varies from the definition of intervention. Intervention can mean a lot of different things depending on who you ask.

Our largest challenge is having the fortitude to utterly destroy an enemy and all of it's war making capacity (recruiting, financial, political, economic etc). We try to do as little damage as possible, which I understand makes everyone feel a little better but the reality is the "intervention ends up going on far longer than we planned, interest is lost, winning is not well defined etc.

You can look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam (to a lesser degree Korea) as good examples of what not to do. It is no that our armed forces are not winning on the ground when they engage the enemy. We certainly could vanquish them if let loose to do so. It is that we do not have the political courage to vanquish them and their supporters absolutely. The enemy knows how to drag it out. They know we will lose interest and eventually go away. There is proof to support this notion. The know our history better than we do.

They understand insurgency and how to do it. We talk counter insurgency a lot but we seem unable to counter their insurgencies completely. Not that I don't think we could it always comes back to a matter of political courage to do what needs to be done and not keep looking at polls or worrying about how we will be viewed by some.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 2 at 2016 6:43 AM

2016-09-02T06:43:37-04:00

When the United States military is unleashed, it is a juggernaut. Green kryptonite couldn't slow it down. Then our government got creative and decided that it was the military's job to be State Department employees and were to also be ambassadors, nation builders, civil engineers, media savvy spokesmen, social workers,........................
The last successful nation to be built post-war, by the military, was Japan....and that required nuclear weapons to get to the foundation that was necessary to rebuild upon. A nation that had been around for thousands of years, militarily hardened by the way of bushido.....reduced to rubble. When the will to fight was finally outmatched by their overwhelming misery, a new nation was reborn. Their very identity was forever changed.
We live in the world of public opinion, political correctness, and politicians who plan their every move based on their ability to hold onto power for as long as they can. The military works for the sitting POTUS and their own State Department. Rules of engagement are not designed to keep our warriors safe. Our troops are made to feel that their own nation will throw them under the bus whenever it is convenient. HRC single handedly destroyed the one thing that every warrior holds sacred; leave no one behind.
I have a difficult time trying to engage my brain housing group with our civilian leader's intentions. Apparently, so did so many of our key leaders. There have been so many quality military leaders relieved for one pathetic reason or another and usually it was for making a decision geared towards keeping their troops safe. I miss the simple days. The days when the military was unleashed like a plague upon our enemies.

Response by SFC John Hill made Sep 2 at 2016 6:44 AM

2016-09-02T06:44:18-04:00

While intervention may be for a variety of reasons from political to humanitarian, our values may not necessarily be their values. Democracy is not for everyone. There are different forms of government whether it be monarchy, by counsel, or other. In societies where the differences are based in tribal, religious, ethnic or other historical reasons intervention is not a short term solution. It becomes a minimum of a one generation commitment to instill the new and wean out the bad (our opinion) in the culture of a different society. That culture has to be open to change. They may or may not be ready or willing to accept change.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2016 7:53 AM

2016-09-02T07:53:28-04:00

I've always thought that the notion of the US military being able to build a nation or set in place some kind of government is irrational. The only reason our republic was successful was because we had a history of hundreds of years of a free nation until the monarchy was deemed tyrannical and that led to the revolution and ultimately the making of our country. To think that we could do that overnight, in parts of the world where many hate westerners, and haven't had any kind of organized government in decades is just not reasonable.

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 2 at 2016 8:03 AM

2016-09-02T08:03:34-04:00

One of our biggest problems is that we don't understand the cultures in the places we fight. I have seen this time and time again where we try to apply American ideals to people who aren't Americans. Another problem I see is that military leaders by and far don't study the history nearly enough. Right before I deployed to Afghanistan, none of my leaders had any clue that the Soviets fought a long brutal war there. And time and time again, we make the same mistakes. I think we need to really exercise more care before getting involved in places around the world. We should only involve ourselves in direct threats to us or our allies and let the chips fall where they may for the rest. It is not our job to depose dictators. Their governments exist with (at least on a nominal level) by the consent of the governed. It is not up to us to involve ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations. I am not suggesting we be totally isolationist, but we need to pick our wars carefully. Look at the last 15 years, what have we really accomplished other than depleting our resources and creating conditions that led to negative 2nd and 3rd order effects?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2016 8:27 AM

2016-09-02T08:27:42-04:00

Because we are there and not here where we belong.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 2 at 2016 9:03 AM

2016-09-02T09:03:22-04:00

Why do we have intelligent people like the responders to this topic and elect people to represent us that can't consider anything except the next election?

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Sep 2 at 2016 9:15 AM

2016-09-02T09:15:06-04:00

hey, the guy in that picture is from my old company that I deployed with to Iraq. small world! :-)

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Sep 2 at 2016 9:24 AM

2016-09-02T09:24:20-04:00

Need to define 'work'. Listen to admin mouthpieces from Sharon Rice & WH press secretary, CJCOS, GOs down to E1 snuffie, and everything we do or have done to date has 'worked' and we have been 'successful' and 'accomplished the mission' on continual basis. We are just great.

Response by SGT Philip Roncari made Sep 2 at 2016 9:27 AM

2016-09-02T09:27:45-04:00

This seems to be the mantle that we have put on since World War II becoming a super power has led this Nation down many different paths not all that we followed have turned out so well for us,but the underlying premise is always I think to make the world a better place,I might have a Pollyanna outlook on this theme but think I read some where about life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Sep 2 at 2016 11:19 AM

2016-09-02T11:19:01-04:00

Intervention is other Countries' civil wars has put the US behind the 8 ball to many times. Our awesome military power should be use to defend against attack and or retaliate after one. The Navy also has the responsibility to protect our flagged ships at sea. Humanitarian relief missions are not a military function; however, we use our same National resources to accomplish these State Department missions. Lastly, when we go to war it needs to be to win - total war. When the military objective is accomplish our troops should go home.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2016 1:36 PM

2016-09-02T13:36:36-04:00

Mostly, maybe for reason unbeknownst to most, we don't know what the end state should be. We are trained to kill, not to implement change. Intervention works when you have a plan or course of action to rebuild whatever it is you are tearing down or attempting to fix. Based or recent history it doesn't work because we can't change the values, or lack of values (depending on who you are talking to) to fit ours. Based on older history it has. It's a toss up and also a matter of wanting assistance (intervention) and assitance being thrust upon you.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 2 at 2016 5:51 PM

2016-09-02T17:51:33-04:00

That's a helluva good question and it seems it's one that many of us have been wondering about given the depth of comments in response. Personally, I think it doesn't work because it can't. (Now doesn't that sound stupid - but it's true). Ask any mechanic and they'll tell you. "I can fix anything if only I had a bigger hammer." It seems that the mechanic's in Washington have been playing by that rule for a long time.

How about using a different paradigm: Use the right tool for the job. If things need blowing up or people need killing, send in the military. If not, don't. And when you're done blowing up those things and killing those people, go home. If you need a nation built, let the people who live there build it. If they ask for help, help as little as possible so they will build their own government. Try reading the Declaration of Independence. It's a great guide to nation building.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2016 6:28 PM

2016-09-02T18:28:21-04:00

Nation building is a major aspect of the US military's strategic policy. From multi-national training engagements like the one going on in Poland, to digging wells and treating disease in West Africa, the US military is part of a multi-agency effort to help stabilize certain regions of the world. In order to accomplish that, not only do you have to help provide and bolster security, you have to help develop infrastructure, reinforce foreign economies, and maintain a persistent presence.

Otherwise you end up with what happened to Afghanistan in the 1990's. A failed state that is rapidly overrun by radical extremists. Does our military have the capability to nation build? Absolutely, and the bulk of that capability lies within the Special Operations community. Recently Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and Psychological Operations were unified under a single command to help better coordinate their efforts. The Marine Corps also has taken their fledgling steps into enhancing their capability to interact by, with, and through foreign elements to increase security in at risk nations with persistent mil-to-mil relationships.

Furthermore, the Army has regionally aligned many of its divisions. This allows for soldiers to learn the pertinent languages and cultures of their assigned regions so they can be better prepared to assist with infrastructure issues, deal with complex relationships between different ethnic groups, and identify economic issues. This regional alignment also allows for senior staff to develop better working relationships with other agencies such as the State Department or NGOs like USAID that may be better prepared to handle some of the issues.

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Sep 4 at 2016 9:07 PM

2016-09-04T21:07:29-04:00

I think it usually does work, when acting within the initial mission related task list. The military doesn't create it's own policy concerning how the U.S. maintains or creates long term relationships. The military always acts on behalf of a civilian who signed an order. I wonder if the State Department would stand up to the operational scrutiny that the DoD has withstood over the generations. Probably not in my lifetime.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2016 9:59 AM

2016-09-06T09:59:04-04:00

It's a good question, but I think the answer has more to do with politics, than with resourcing and capabilities.

I spent over 3 years in Afghanistan. I think the first requirement to raising Afghanistan from a feudal state is literacy. But it will take 20 to 30 years to bring Afghanistan to even 70% literacy. Politicians just don't have that kind of staying power. If there is anyone who believes that a politicians is more interested in nation building than in his reelection chances, I have a bridge to sell you.

Or take Iraq. If we had announced when we entered Iraq that we expected to be there as long as we have been in Germany, I don't think we would have faced near as much terrorism. But politicians wanted a quick victory that they could hang reelection chances on, so we let the whole world know that we wanted out as quickly as possible. Naturally, each opposition group wanted credit for speeding our withdrawal for their political credit.

We have a hard time in disbursing and accounting for money. It's more important to pretend that the money is well spent, even if it goes into some rich SOB's slush fund. There's no trick to demanding accountability. You just have to set a schedule and check on it regularly.

Finally, again politics can be seen in Syria, where the Russians are defending Assad and attacking the forces we are training, while we want Assad out, but aren't doing anything about it except training people for the Russians to shoot. The military cannot accomplish what politicians don't want accomplished.

Response by CH (COL) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2016 10:01 AM

2016-09-06T10:01:23-04:00

Because after the State Dept. has already failed and it has become necessary to commit US forces, we give control over policy, rules of engagement, etc. to the State Dept. instead of the military.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2016 10:26 AM

2016-09-06T10:26:40-04:00

Intervention is a political decision. If the politics of the decision to intervene are sound it 'may' work. Since most political decisions about intervention (or any other topic) are poor at best it is no wonder why military intervention, as of late has not worked as some would have it work. How many government programs in any area could be classified as efficient? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Just my take on it all of course.

Response by MSG Michael McEleney made Sep 6 at 2016 10:33 AM

2016-09-06T10:33:36-04:00

I think we've failed in Iraq because there was no plan for what was to follow after the defeat and ouster of Saddam Huessein. What was left was a power vacuum which brought out the Sunni and Shia factions to fight against each other. In Japan and Germany, the Allies set up governments and an infrastructure to bring normalcy back within 5 years of the wars end.

Response by 1SG Jay Vanderford made Sep 6 at 2016 10:48 AM

2016-09-06T10:48:49-04:00

As a retired and Veteran 1SG I'll chime in here briefly, I think great examples of how to do things the right way are Japan and Germany, and I know, everyone uses those as examples, however, they were both huge successes, that came a great loss. I think that when were intervene in a country without occupation for an extremely long time, its like placing someone in a correctional facility, once returned to their own devices they tend to revert to what they know. Based on that analogy, success stories will be far and few between in our global endeavors if we continue the correctional like methods we currently employ. Lastly, we impede the natural progress of the countries we go into, or change their course in history all together, countries must be afforded to undergo their own civil strife to the end that best supports their way of life's morals, values, norms and belief system, not ours, ours is for the American dream, not necessarily everywhere else, people that share our beliefs in freedom and democracy move here and assimilate.

Response by Sgt Justin Vickers made Sep 6 at 2016 11:07 AM

2016-09-06T11:07:28-04:00

I am a firm believer that we should only have one simple mission statement. Deter the enemy if possible, kill them if it is not. We should not be involved in someone else's wars and we shouldn't be lingering for decades spending trillions of tax payer dollars and our soldiers lives trying to police nations that do not want to be policed. We should continue to maintain the most powerful force in human history and pray it is not needed. Fighting in Iraq has not made America prosperous. It has not solved the problem with world peace. In fact we have had the opposite effect. We should be a bit more isolationist in nature and stay out of foreign conflicts with a few exceptions. There will be times when we must intervene, but very few. When those things happen, and they will, we should have the same approach. Deploy, kill the enemy, and then come home.

Response by SFC David Davenport made Sep 6 at 2016 11:43 AM

2016-09-06T11:43:53-04:00

Nation building is not the military's responsibility. The State Department is responsible for nation building. The military can and should assist but they should be in a supporting role to the DoS (not the host nation). There are some good examples of successful nation building in the past but no modern examples success come to mind. In recent cases of Afghanistan and Iraq we tried to fundamentally change the geopolitical culture of the nation in ways they were not ready to accept. Democracy is not the right answer for every country. For almost all of human history it has been the minority form of government. the best advice I could give to the country would be to keep any military engagement brief and to the point and avoid nation building. For example handing control of Afghanistan to the Northern Alliance once the Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan made more sense from a military perspective. The second part is choose your targets very carefully. Is Libya and the region better off now than before we pushed to topple the dictatorship? Just my thoughts and opinions. Military intervention works when it is done right and for the right reasons.

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Sep 6 at 2016 12:01 PM

2016-09-06T12:01:39-04:00

America has a fundamental problem. Our leaders wrongfully believe that other countries want what we have. Democratic thought processes elude them because their cultural leadership systems are ingrained and socialized differently. We try nation-building using our military as ambassadors. The military should serve one role and one role only: To ensure complete and utter capitulation by the enemy by destroying will and ability to fight. A tenacious and resourceful enemy wins against us by winning the political war.
If you are not willing to scorch the ant mound and kill everything in it, you will allow the enemy to divide and multiply.
Korea,Vietnam and every succeeding war bears witness to the folly of police actions...(in my opinion)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2016 12:54 PM

2016-09-06T12:54:09-04:00

That's an easy one. It's because politicians are idiots and have no concept what leadership is and especially what the relationship between the government and the military should be.

The military exists to protect America and it's interests. Those interests are typically obtained through diplomacy. When diplomacy fails it falls to the military, should the government decide that interest is important enough to require military action. AT THAT POINT, it is the job of the politicians to create the governments goals and objectives and give them to the military. That SHOULD BE the last communication between the military and government except for status updates until those goals are met and the military should use everything in its power to obtain those goals in the shortest amount of time with the fewest casualties possible.
The government has no business creating ROEs, strategy, any type of military policy or anything else within the military.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2016 1:49 PM

2016-09-06T13:49:42-04:00

It depends:
1. What is the mission?
2. Is it achievable with an actual way to measure it's success?
3. Is it supported by the People of the foreign land?
4. Is it supported by the People of the United States?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Sep 6 at 2016 2:08 PM

2016-09-06T14:08:58-04:00

As a Civil Affairs Operative and MTT team leader in Latin America, military intervention works well only when you engage the locals and gain their support, otherwise we just become their bitches. The same applies to getting teenagers to clean and keep their rooms clean.

Response by MCPO Jeff Gilmet made Sep 6 at 2016 2:15 PM

2016-09-06T14:15:58-04:00

Mostly because at the end of the day the Military is run by pencil dick civilians. Then comes money, greed, special interest, political gain, back door deals, incompetence and the list goes on. The military is a broad sword, not a scalpel.

Response by PO1 Robert Johnson made Sep 6 at 2016 2:41 PM

2016-09-06T14:41:08-04:00

We are the most powerful military in the world. There is no mission anywhere that we can not complete, no objective left untaken. Having said that however, there is a big BUT and it is called Political insertion. Politicians, many of whom have never worn a uniform and many more who have, have never experienced deployments yet they set unrealistic and dangerous Terms of Engagement on those who are in harms way. Always, they are looking for ways to gain personally, be it votes or power, whatever.
Many years ago, when I was still on active duty, the average cost of training an enlisted man to competently perform his duties was approximately $300-350K or more. I have no idea of that cost today, but having spent all that money to train our seamen, soldiers and airmen, the taxpayer is being short changed all the way around.
POTUS, SECDEF, Senator X and Congressman Y have involved themselves in decision making, POAs, and every other aspect of the military fighting machine and by so doing have weakened our abilities to perform our missions. In Viet Nam we had Political action units whose sole function was to provide guidance and support to local political entities thus leaving the fighting units to complete their missions. The politicians have decided to spread the wealth, so to speak. Now all units are in the business of winning hearts and minds and it does not work. In the most recent past, our politicians seem to be bent on setting us up to fail, setting long term goals and then not giving us the time and resources to achieve them. Keep the politicians noses out of the military and We could get the job done, more than likely at far less cost and in far less time.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2016 3:09 PM

2016-09-06T15:09:38-04:00

Reminds me of the book "The Mouse That Roared."
Cliff notes: "We're broke, so let's declare war on the United States so they'll beat us, then rebuild us and leave."

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Sep 6 at 2016 3:38 PM

2016-09-06T15:38:21-04:00

Just like ALL problems, it's easier and cheaper to PREVENT the inequity. We shouldn't send in the troops until all the businessmen and diplomats have utterly failed to resolve the underlying problems that led to the conflict. Even then, killing bunches of people and breaking their economy is a productive solution in only the most extreme cases. It almost always leads to hatred and future revenge.

Response by SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder made Sep 6 at 2016 3:41 PM

2016-09-06T15:41:22-04:00

In as much of a mess as the world is right now, I believe that it would be very much worse if the United States had a zero-intervention policy. A good documentary to watch in support of this hypothesis is called "The World Without US."

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2016 6:27 PM

2016-09-06T18:27:13-04:00

I would like to answer that question with a question. If America became a failed state, how would Americans react if China came to intervene with a few hundred thousand Chinese troops? Once they establish control, the Chinese then completely revamp the American political structure, put curfews in effect in areas of unrest, and begin to manage the training of American police and military. I think we all know how that would turn out - about how Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. have been turning out when we try to intervene. Now, maybe if Canada stepped in to help put America back together things would work out but when you have the kind of cultural gap that exists between affluent, democratic, "Christian" America and a poor, dictatorial, Muslim country the stage is set for failure from the beginning.

Response by PO2 Dave Cutsinger made Sep 6 at 2016 6:42 PM

2016-09-06T18:42:54-04:00

I recall being a young sailor of 20, anchored in Jeddah in 1991, when our force stopped short of Baghdad. I was confused. A lot of us were. How did we come this far only to stop now?

I worked in Personnel, organized and administered advancement exams. I had to find medals and commendations for each sailor to add those points to their score. In my ten years of scouring service records, I never saw one Purple Heart, one bronze or silver star. How many points must be given out today?

I hope this is why the senior President Bush stopped short of destabilizing the region. The human cost was just too high. One time only did I have to pull and fax a copy of a SGLI for the beneficiary information. I'm sure this is largely computerized now, but somewhere I'm guessing there's a large growing pile of hard copies of those.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Sep 6 at 2016 7:25 PM

2016-09-06T19:25:37-04:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner. Simple answer sir, War Plans no longer define "Victory". We seek not territory, we don't want to destroy something like religious icons, we claim we are not in regime change but insist that who ever is in charge adopt a Capitalists, Democratic Republic. We don't demand it up front but only Christians may apply. We can't comprehend that most of the world is happy not being US. If you want to win wars you have to state what winning is.

Response by SGT Tim Fridley made Sep 6 at 2016 9:05 PM

2016-09-06T21:05:04-04:00

It is not the job of the Military to nation build as least it never has been before. The job of the Military is to go in kick ass and get the fuck out period.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Sep 6 at 2016 9:18 PM

2016-09-06T21:18:26-04:00

It seems "Nation Building" is more of a tag line found in the showroom brochure use to sell whatever foreign entanglement our government is selling to the American people.
How would you feel if a foreign power ran roughshod through your neighborhood, after killing your kids, explaining they're there to help?

Response by CW4 Robert Goldsmith made Sep 6 at 2016 9:39 PM

2016-09-06T21:39:44-04:00

The military never has and never will be able to build nations because it doesn't have the resources. That lies within governments that the United States has no jurisdiction over. The U.S. continues to waste an abundance of lives and money trying to police foreign nations under the direction of politicians who wouldn't dare risk anything and bear arms to defend this great nation. It' a sad testament that our nation's leaders stifle our military leaders and their ability to plan and execute decisive battles to win wars, but it's reality. I'm sure there are senior non-commissioned officers and junior field grade officers in war zones right now who were there very early in their careers at the beginning of this century. I honor their service and sacrifice, but only wish that our political leaders would allow our great military to cut the heads off of snakes instead of caging them like zookeepers.

Response by PO1 Michael Garrett made Sep 6 at 2016 10:20 PM

2016-09-06T22:20:06-04:00

Our military exists with one purpose: to make life a living Hell for those who threaten our way of life. It is meant for total war, not nation building. As a member on here posted, peace (and nation building) can only be achieved once the enemy realized he has no other option. Our military is NOT HERE TO BE LIKED BUT FEARED.
Our military is now doing peace-keeping missions in areas were full combat is taking place and our enemies are exploiting this. We see a slow bleed of our troops that are hindered by insane rules of engagement. Has anyone ever read the USMC's SMALL WARS MANUAL-1940? It is a textbook on how to pacify a region. One of the rules of success is that our military has to have the FULL SUPPORT of their political leaders. Today our leaders have either forgotten the lessons of Vietnam or see our troops as the cause of all evils.
Another aspect is our ignorance (and sometimes arrogance) of the areas we go into. Ambrose Bierce once quipped that, "war is nature's way of teaching Americans geography." He is more right that we know. How many of you knew what a burqa was, where Herat was located, or even the difference between Shi'a and Sunni before 9/11? We got a crash course in all of this after 9/11.
Once again the military rose to the occasion and adapted to living and fighting in foreign nations. Today our leaders keep making the same mistakes that our troops have to pay for in blood. For example, the US Ambassador to Libya who was murdered in Benghazi along with 3 others who tried to save him. Did any of you know he was openly gay? What would offend a Muslim more than having to deal with a foreign leader in their own country where being gay gets you killed?

Response by SFC James Tihanyi made Sep 6 at 2016 11:31 PM

2016-09-06T23:31:00-04:00

Since WWII, the US Military has been deployed without justified-reason, without a plan to bring the adventure into a fair, humane end game. Think of Korea, what did the US gain? Think of Vietnam? The, 'Domino Effect'? 56 thousand of our best, fell victim and another 21 hundred POW/MIA, WHY? The ungraceful retreat in 1975! Kissinger lurking in the background, pulling the strings! Millions of S. Vietnamese in, 'Re-Education Camps', tens of thousands perished at the sea trying to escape the Communist paradise that awaited them! Like the past decade, Iraq? We moved in to destroy a nation, based on false information, 'WMD's, mostly provided by our, 'friend', Zionist Israel and it's Agents, right here in the US, who are hidden in our Political System/AIPAC, et al. We destroyed, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, now working on Syria. Tens of millions of unfortunates are driven from their homes, hundreds of thousands are murdered, by the US and others, for Political and Religious Zealotry. The Continent of Europe is engulfed in a, 'Flood of Humanity' while tens of thousands perish while trying to get to a safe heaven. The US Military Might has been, 'Misused-Abused' for decades, The 'Blood and Treasure' of the People of the United States isn't sacrifised for the 'Safety and Security/Interest of the US. but for 'Foreign Entities'!!

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Sep 7 at 2016 12:35 AM

2016-09-07T00:35:08-04:00

Giving a people a hand up, yea. Even if they are former enemies. We have seen it work. Doing a half arsed job and then trying to placate factions that have been warring for hundreds if not thousands of years, not so much. If two parties want to kill one another only a fool stands in the middle. Especially if neither party especially likes the fool.

I think that a bigger mistake perhaps was not having a solid concrete plan in place for after the win. As SFC Mark Merino observed, the US Military is juggernaut not to be trifled with, but that can only do so much. When the politicians fail to have a plan in place for afterwards, they fail the troops. The military trains to be the hammer, and while they can do a lot to reach out and build friends, in the end, they can not be expected to be the velvet glove of diplomacy.

Lastly we need to understand the people, the culture and work within it, not try to mold it to our own. The Marshal plan didn't try to change the culture of the nations, just help them rebuild and extend the hand of friendship.

Response by SGT David Petree made Sep 7 at 2016 3:52 AM

2016-09-07T03:52:59-04:00

it depends on how`s in charge. army`s fight. first & for most ! Government changes the rules that govern what mite be done. if the goal is Not cl ear then it is a waste of time. Iraq was a waste of time at the start. there was No clear cut goal to start with, no good plain. some one just throught they would just roll over & play friends still not happing.
.

Response by SFC James Lahtonen made Sep 7 at 2016 5:57 AM

2016-09-07T05:57:05-04:00

This is a timeless question and I have read some really good responses. I agree that we have changed what we do with our military, also the times have changed. After WWII it was the ARMY of OCCUPATION in both Europe and ASIA, then Uncle Joe pulled a fast one that many saw coming and started scooping up territory. Today we "Don't want to look like we are Occupying the country", we don't allow our soldiers to fight to their fullest extent. We make up ROE that are just plain stupid, all in the name of PC. The same people who preach that the "Geneva Convention says you can't shoot at the Mosque" fail to read past the comma, and they set down the rules. Most of them never leave the FOB unless they have a company sized element for a security team. I tend to agree that kill who needs killing, and blow up what needs to be blown up and let the civilians rebuild, or go back to the ARMY OF OCCUPATION!

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2016 7:33 AM

2016-09-07T07:33:06-04:00

Because we have men who have never served making decisions and strategy. They are only concerned for their well being...yes...they are political leaders.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Sep 7 at 2016 7:41 AM

2016-09-07T07:41:20-04:00

My guess would be that we're thinking that we can win hearts and minds BEFORE breaking them.

Response by Cpl Michael Etherton made Sep 7 at 2016 10:16 AM

2016-09-07T10:16:49-04:00

Read Tony Zinni's book "before the first shots are Fired." Know how to get out, before you step in.

Response by COL John Hudson made Sep 7 at 2016 10:22 AM

2016-09-07T10:22:12-04:00

I spent the better part of four years in Iraq - Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, and traveled extensively throughout . I defy anyone out there to stand in the center of that country, face the cardinal four points, and show me one item, anywhere, as a result of the billions wasted there. One lesson I learned from that boots-on-the ground experience (NOT behind a desk) was the 'thugery' aspect of its population. Infrastructure turned over to Iraqi Army units was stripped bare within days. Many millions of dollars worth of items turned over disappeared just as quickly with no accountability. I was amazed to find when I first arrived that military 'nation building' organizations were considered combat units! Why? For no other reason than they're standing on the same ground? One joint-service Brigadier General I worked with boasted that "money is a combat multiplier," and despite my first-hand experience in advising him otherwise, threw away $6M U.S. dollars on an attempt to get crude oil processed in Ramadi. He was told the Minister of Railroads despised Americans, knew every penny he had (interpreters TALK to each other regardless of position or security clearances), and would pull the plug on him the very second the last penny of that $6M was spent with NO results to show for it and that is exactly what happened. One of the primary reasons for the fiasco of that idea is the hubris displayed by so-called 'big players' that they knew best...building facilities, generator parks, and God only knows what else, without ever asking any member of that country if they wanted the feature being built. Look into the sanitation fiasco in Fallujah for one extreme example of this thinking. In just ONE personal example, I managed a $110M contract to build a school in Taji, Iraq. Equipment in the form of 55 small white pickup trucks was to be provided to the Director General of the Electric Power Security Service (EPSS). Once the keys were turned over, 100% those trucks disappeared...probably on the market in Amman, Jordan, which is where that Director General fled to after I filed a formal fraud complaint with the American Special Inspector General there (including the Minister of Electricity who had a warrant for his arrest issued). I absolutely refused to turn over 2,100 pairs of expensive high-quality night vision goggles, contract be damned, as I knew for certain they would be on the black market being used against us. Another so-called Minister was stopped at the Baghdad airport with millions of U.S. dollars, claiming he was taking it to Jordan for 'safe keeping.' The story of Iraq is full of fraud, theft, corruption and each and every briefing could be started with those words. I have no confidence that the next time this country stands on someone else's contested ground that the same damned events won't repeat themselves in equal manner.

Response by COL John Hudson made Sep 7 at 2016 10:43 AM

2016-09-07T10:43:33-04:00

Lots of water boiling on this one - I've read a great deal of the commentary below. I offer the following personal observation:
The office of President in this country is manned by incompetent fools because that "Office" is bought! It's a popularity contest with the lightest job requirement of any position existing anywhere within the U.S. of A. Spend the most $$ and/or make the most outrageous bovine spatter comments to keep your face out there and you'll sit in the big chair based on little else beyond one's age and place of birth! We need a constitutional amendment redefining the role of President and the educational and experiential requirements to perform satisfactorily...including provisions to fire that person and ANY member of Congress not performing to the standard of the vacuous promises they made! We need another line on ballots stating, "None of the above." If the 'None" item wins, then the two candidates are removed from contention and each party much provide fresh new candidates. Does any human being out there believe that such common sense ideas will EVER see the light of day?

Response by GySgt Charles O'Connell made Sep 7 at 2016 11:10 AM

2016-09-07T11:10:21-04:00

In recent history our intervention has proved less than successful because we have - 1) Tried to achieve strategic goals with "limited war". Limited warfare brings a limited result. 2) Use of military forces in the role of "peacekeepers". Our Armed Forces are not trained or equipped to carry out such roles. These roles are better left to the baby blue berets. There has also been, in my opinion, an up and down level of support from the public and elected officials. Everyone wants the bad guys dealt with, but when the casualties rise, and civilians suffer, it's "oh crap, we've gotta get out of there".

Response by Capt Jim Sower made Sep 7 at 2016 12:14 PM

2016-09-07T12:14:14-04:00

The basic problem is we don't bother to understand what the issues are. We regard the "wars" in the Middle East as new developments. To much of our opposition, they are Act III of WW-I. After WW-I, France and England drew a lot of arbitrary lines in the old Ottoman Empire and defined them as "Nations". These boundaries very deliberately included a religious majority and a minority. They picked a guy they could run from the minority to run the place resulting in internal hatreds (minority government constantly quashing majority population) kept the whole country so busy fighting among themselves they never noticed who was really screwing them. A brilliant post-colonial strategy from which we're now reaping the whirlwind.
Add to that that the fact that the US, after all these years (since 1954 or so), hasn't learned how to fight an asymmetric war. Seventy years on, we are still fighting WW-II (the only even-close-to-success being the first four months after 9/11 - which effort we quickly abandoned in favor of carpet-bombing). We as a nation are flying on instruments here (in the sense that there's no visual reference to the horizon when you've got your head up your ass).

Response by SGT Mary G. made Sep 7 at 2016 1:31 PM

2016-09-07T13:31:06-04:00

It is difficult to compare the type of occupation (rebuilding) today (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) with, for example, the occupation of Japan and Germany after WWII. Having served in Germany, I have to say that by the mid-80s, 40 years later, it was very clear the occupation by allies after the war had been good for Germany.
Both current occupations have been complicated from the start by ongoing armed conflict which destroys many rebuilding efforts. It is doubtful that the current endless seeming occupations, in 40 years or more, would change the nature of the current rebuilding efforts, except to create more problems domestically because of neglecting issues that need funding.

Response by Vance Frickey made Sep 7 at 2016 1:34 PM

2016-09-07T13:34:53-04:00

The "Powell Doctrine" gave a list of questions to be answered "Yes" before military action is taken by the United States:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
This was an extension of the "Weinberger Doctrine" adopted after 241 servicemen, most Marines, died in the 1983 Beirut barracks boimbing, when those servicemen were taking part in a 'peacekeeping mission' in Lebanon.
I think they're good guidelines. I might still have my younger son if they'd been heeded.

Response by SGT Mary G. made Sep 7 at 2016 4:22 PM

2016-09-07T16:22:00-04:00

I have probably commented on this topic more than my fair share, but I have to make one more comment. It is good to see there is a lot of interest in the topic and so many intelligent responses. I have read the responses, of course, because of a personal interest. Part of that interest is in being equipped with as many responses as possible for civilians who want to blame the military for doing it's job, instead of blaming the government for its seemingly endless use and abuse of our military force without well thought out adequate objectives - which include but are not limited to micromanaging it, and using it to do the work other government departments should be doing before and after the military does it's job.

Response by Jd Baucom made Sep 7 at 2016 5:29 PM

2016-09-07T17:29:09-04:00

In my humble opinion we are asking too much from members of our Armed Forces. We can not be police, politicians, civil servants, diplomats and (oh by the way) ... soldiers. While the State Department must coordinate with the DOD, they must take the lead after the military objective has been accomplished. The job of diplomats is to win the peace. The job of soldiers is to "close with, engage and destroy the enemy". Trying to wear too many hats means you don't do justice to any of them. "Mission First ... Soldiers Always".

Response by PFC Kimberly LaVoie made Sep 7 at 2016 7:19 PM

2016-09-07T19:19:28-04:00

I think our record has always been spotty, however, in this day and age I believe the biggest impediment is the lack of patience of our elected "leaders" and the media's controversy creating hand wringing which gets the general public all wound up.

Response by SPC Daniel Joslin made Sep 8 at 2016 8:59 AM

2016-09-08T08:59:58-04:00

If you are asking specifically about US military intervention, I think the first thing we must realize is that not everyone thinks as we do. We Americans feel that we are the greatest country in the world with the best of everything, and we do; however, not everyone wants what we have to offer. From the beginning, they have only known one way to live and for them it has worked. Maybe not as we would like it to have, but that have come to terms with their lives. When we go in somewhere, we try to change everything to a more democratic way of life because we know that its works for us, not understanding that some people are good with the status quo. Also, after we leave, most places don't have the money, economy, knowledge, etc. to maintain what we have put in place, so it falls back into the same rut. I have spent a good amount of time in eastern europe, specifically Romania. When communism first fell, everyone had high hopes that things would go back to the way they were in the 1930s. I have spoken with many of the old folks there who long for the days of communist control only because that is what they know. At least during that time they had food, jobs, homes, etc. Now there is rampant government corruption, no jobs and no real positive outlook on the horizon even though they are a free country now. I think possibly the better option for the military would be to sit back and let the indigenous people figure out what works best for them and assist if they ask for help.

Response by SFC Clark Adams made Sep 8 at 2016 12:19 PM

2016-09-08T12:19:09-04:00

Because the US military hasn't fought to win a war since WWII. The US Military is the epitome of American myopia. Somehow "we" feel that our way of life and social structures should be placed into the cultures and societies of the world. In the arrogance of our people and politicians, it's been decided that we know all, can do all and others must emulate America's greatness and perfection!!(SARCASM FONT ON) When this country accepts the fact that the military forces are meant to engage in the destruction of those who threaten the welfare and stability of America. Any tool can be used incorrectly, but do not expect a good result from the misuse of said tool.

Response by PO2 David Ball made Sep 8 at 2016 4:56 PM

2016-09-08T16:56:49-04:00

I guess you do not know history . So let me educate you . See WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo Iraq, Afghanistan etc.. The answer is win the war and if possible help rebuild but that is it. The last eight years it's like we have been fighting NOT TO LOSE just like the early day's of Viet Nam . You either win or leave but never half step your way to victory.

Response by Brig Gen Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2016 6:14 PM

2016-09-08T18:14:23-04:00

We have been criticized in the past for going in, winning the military victory, then leaving a big vacuum where insurgents pour in. Taiwan, perhaps. We are also prepared to fight wars against nation states, but that is not the opponent we face now; we face insurgents and non-nation state players (To a degree ISIS's pursuit of a true Caliphate plays to the military advantage there, as they are declaring themselves a nation state . . but I digress.)
If the opponent that threatens our existence is a non nation state player, then we are fighting a counter insurgency role . If you are going to win THAT war, you HAVE to do some degree of nation building. You otherwise make a big splash where you dropped your bomb, and then other insurgents just rush in to take over
Petraeus figured it out. Once you have secured an area, you use the military might to protect the building government. You keep them healthy enough that the populace will start to trust the government more than the insurgents. Realize that the population pays a heavy price for protecting these insurgents. Once you tip the scale in favor of the legitimate government, the people will turn over the insurgents.
If we were fighting nation states it would be different, but we aren't. Since our opponents can simply fade into the population, we have to engage the nation that is in place.

Response by Bergman Oswell made Sep 10 at 2016 3:24 PM

2016-09-10T15:24:35-04:00

Imagine how we would react if a foreign nation sent troops into our cities -- Ferguson, for example -- without our invitation or consent, and began intervening in our conflicts.

How would we react to such an invasion of our sovereign territory?

Response by SFC Don Vance made Sep 13 at 2016 10:24 PM

2016-09-13T22:24:14-04:00

Intervention works if and when the military is given the freedom that they need to bring the entire country to it's knees like we did in Japan and Europe!! Otherwise we become engaged in protracted warfare and nation building. We didn't learn from France's failure in Vietnam so we had to suffer the same mistake and humiliating lesson. Then we tried it in Somalia and lost again. Now we've continued on the same path in the Middle East. Until our civilian leadership is willing to face the reality that the only way to win in the Middle East is complete and total subjugation of the culture we will not win there.

Response by COL Lee Flemming made Sep 14 at 2016 5:54 AM

2016-09-14T05:54:06-04:00

What are your thoughts COL Mikel J. Burroughs, TSgt Melissa Post, TSgt Joe C., SFC John Hill George Smith, Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member, Col Dona Marie Iversen

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 14 at 2016 12:50 PM

2016-09-14T12:50:47-04:00

Sir, because intervention is only a Band-Aid solution. While it can be successful in the short term, unless the local populace is wiling and able to carry on the long term solution (or WE are willing to carry out the long term solution...which nowadays we are not), the situation usually devolves back to where it was pre-intervention. Interventions rarely address the core issue that caused the problem in the first place.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2016 9:04 AM

2016-09-16T09:04:45-04:00

Great post, COL Lee Flemming I'll have to think on this for a minute.

Response by TSgt Melissa Post made Sep 17 at 2016 10:16 PM

2016-09-17T22:16:52-04:00

COL Lee Flemming Sorry for the delayed response. This week has been intense. But I can't stop thinking about this question until I post. Boy, this is a loaded question. I suppose you would have to define what exactly do you mean by "work". Do the conflicts end? Sometimes. That really depends on the type of conflict/war, the support behind each side, and the resources at hand. Did World War II work? Yes. Why? Because we had the will to win, the support of our nation, and the resources from our nation pulling together in combination with our allies. Did Vietnam work? No. Why? Because we did not have the support of our nation, we did not have the will to win, just to contain. I think we had the resources but did not utilize them to the best of our abilities.

Another aspect to consider is the type of conflict/war. Those two examples above are very similar in their nature. We fought nations, countries, government, politics. The situation we are in currently is not a whole nation, country, government, or political stance. Instead it is an ideology, a religion, an extreme group. They are much more difficult to target.

The military of our past, my grandfather's era, was built to fight. What are we built for now? Honestly, I don't think we are building anything. To build a fighting machine, you have to build something that is not afraid to offend. Something that will do the job regardless of "feelings" or "appearances". Do you think Gen. MacArthur or Gen. Patton were concerned about "feelings" or "appearances"? Were they considered politically correct? My guess would be no, and they are considered two of our greatest generals. Today's military has classes about being sensitive to the newer generation. We are told that the new troops coming in are a different generation. Well why has boot camp/basic training changed so much that we have to now cater to the newcomers? They know what they are getting into. The softer we become with our recruits the softer our military forces will be. In my opinion, we are not building fighters. Instead we are destroying what little fight we still have.

As for the expectation to nation build, I don't recall anywhere in my oath of enlistment anything regarding the building of other nations. How can we build a nation when our own is crumbling around us. The problem with Washington is they don't want to admit that it is crumbling because then someone has to take the blame for it. In reality, the nation's slow demise has spanned over decades. Therefore, it is not just one person to blame but many. Regardless, other countries no longer look to America like they used to-a great world power. Why should they now listen to us when we try to tell them how to set up their government. Now they look at who we have chosen to run for our President and it degrades their view even more. We are throwing our own reputation down the drain and wondering why they won't listen. Hmm...

We have the potential to have the resources to nation build. The issue with this is that we haven't even repaired our nation yet but we are trying to fix others. Why do we depend on foreign powers for oil when we could easily produce our own? Why do we give away our jobs, when our nations unemployment rates are so high? Who's best interest are we really looking out for? Until we get our priorities straight, I don't think that we should be utilizing all of our resources for other countries. I am not against helping but it is like the oxygen mask example. You have to put yours on first before you can help someone else.

I am sure that there will be some who disagree with my opinions and hey, that is quite alright. Because for now, you still have the right to freedom of speech. Better utilize it while you still can.

Response by SFC James Tihanyi made Oct 6 at 2016 2:48 PM

2016-10-06T14:48:32-04:00

Conflict? We the US, meddling in the affairs of the nations of the Middle East and N. Africa are causing the ,"CONFLICT!" The US Military, the mightiest on this Planet, has been turned into and used and abused as the, "Attack Dog" for the interests, not that of the People of the United States but the Interests of the Bolshevik-Zionist Apartheid Theocracy of the Terror State of Israel! Thanks to our, 'Spineless' representatives in the Congress and the Federal Government who are nothing but the SERVANTS of the Bolshevik-Zionist International Kosher Nostra! Read; "America's Misadventures in the Middle East." and "America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East." by CHAS W. FREEMAN Jr. One time US. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia! Truth and Knowledge, IS POWER!!

Response by SN Earl Robinson made Jul 6 at 2017 3:49 PM

2017-07-06T15:49:38-04:00

Try untying the units hands with realistic rules of engagement!

Response by SFC James Tihanyi made Jul 13 at 2017 12:42 PM

2017-07-13T12:42:55-04:00

Because a great part of the world population is not buying the slogan, under which we are conducting our Military Missions! Spreading, "American Values", "Democracy"? Is it justified by, murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, by dropping the Atomic Bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Imperial Japan was on it's knees, or, in cities like, Dresden, Hamburg and many others in Germany, during WW2! What about Eisenhower, supreme commander in Europe, who after WW2 starved to death over ONE MILLION German POW's, in Germany! What did we gain in KOREA, other than sacrificing our own blood and treasure, for little or no gain? What about Vietnam, where we lost 58 thousand of our bravest and left some 21 hundred POW/MIAs? For What? WHY? Slogans like, 'Domino Effect', if we don't stop communism there, it will spread all over South East Asia! Now, that didn't materialize, but we abandoned, the people of S. Vietnam for political expediency! Thank You Henry Kissinger! Communist Reeducation Camps for the People of S. Vietnam and tens of thousand perished on their way to escape the RED TERROR! What are we doing in the Middle East and N. Africa? Dismantling stable Governments, IRAQ, that was attacked because of, 'False' WMD Intelligence Reports from, Agents of Zionist Israel, who have, in 1967 attacked the USS LIBERTY and murdered 34 American Citizens and maimed-injured another 172, No one has taken responsibility for that cowardly, Crime on the High Seas, thanks to LBJ, who was more in the service of, the Zionist Israeli American Clique, than the people of the United States. What did we accomplish in Libya, Egypt, "ANARCHY"-American Values! Syria-American Values! Millions of desperate, homeless migrants that WE America has created are flooding the Continent of Europe! Since Iraq fell, the, "BLOOD and TREASURE" of the People of the United States is the, 'Sacrificial Offering', on the 'Barbaric-Bloody Altar' of Zionism!
More and more People on this Planet are realizing that FACT! that is REALITY and the TRUTH!

Response by 1SG Jay Vanderford made Jul 13 at 2017 2:59 PM

2017-07-13T14:59:08-04:00

Military intervention does work in civilized societies, if we are talking Islamic countries, that's a slippery slope at best, but here goes a few thoughts. Now that I have retired and have taken a closer look at the world and see it through a clearer lens, my thoughts are this.

Germany first, look at them today and the past decades since the war. I spent nearly half my Army career there and they are a great people and have like minded values morals and beliefs. Japan, again, returned from the ashes a proud industrious people that also have like minded values morals and beliefs. Korea...

What I am saying here is this, we are now engaged against an ideology, you have to do some research, what is Islam, why did Mohammad go to Medina, why has there been no such thing as a peaceful Muslim since 622, why does their very religion teach to kill all non Muslim believers (the basis to become radicalized is in the teachings of the Koran and Hadith) and much more.

Learning these things will help you understand that we can never win, nor can we ever make a difference in the war on terrorism. One dies 10 more emerge, there Is no head of the snake when dealing with an ideology such as Islam.

I know that sounds defeatist, yet, I was around when the 1972 terrorists attacked at the Munich Olympics, and it continues back from then as well. They are, and always will attack Infidels as opportunity presents itself, and people let their guard down. This is not a war, we cannot kill enough, we cannot destroy enough, we cannot rebuild enough to change the teachings of Islam, so this question,"Why doesn't military intervention in foreign conflicts work? Or does it?" cannot apply to a conflict where Islam is concerned.

The only path as I see it is containment, where ever they spread there will violence, its beginning now across Europe, Its been hitting the U.S. and will increase, its time for our leaders to wake up and realize this fact, this is a no win for us, something they themselves must sort out. Think about that for a minute, if we kill anyone there its spawns more, if they kill each other, at some point it ends.

I'm sure as I stated there will be many that agree and disagree with my statements here, but both history and current status are my guides, cheers.

Response by Emerald S made Jul 13 at 2017 3:30 PM

2017-07-13T15:30:58-04:00

it does work with some foreign and not so with other foreign they have law clause of how to with this or that country etc. , now a group of foreign countries ,gads that could be the main dilemma , same goes for wh leadership . for instance I extend a great thank you to the male that a week before went into the towers (at least one of two towers and gave a very serious pay attention people to them of how to get out in case of fire. not normal for fire drill at those place before~! the drill just before and during layers of,if biden shut it all down ,, while flight of some continued . interesting question above can be read many ways...aside of missing gold few before ....then Benghazi ,not just that just more layers. but the stand down ~~~~~??? i high doubt that your true patriotic Americans would of shunned any attempt referring back to the same question above. 911 made them all question ,same from other countries ,especially about high up leaders ,cia and fbi /the nsa stuff was know about before att ,anyone with computer just has to rethink whom around the world had computers or ibm or cryptography etc. Benghazi #1 from a Canadian Welsh with American niece.

Response by Annie Barnard made Jun 19 at 2022 1:38 AM

2022-06-19T01:38:41-04:00

They are interventions aimed at protecting, defending, or rescuing others from egregious human rights violations perpetrated by their own government. Visit https://sopwritingservices.net/government-intervention-essay-example/ and read this sample essay about government intervention to see for yourself. The armed intervention is carried out without the permission of the offending country. One or more governments or international organizations are intervening militarily.

Government Intervention Essay Example - SOP Writing Service

Essay sample on Government Intervention. If you want to get your unique paper for only 10$ for page - write to us.