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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.