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

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.

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.

What are your thoughts COL Mikel J. Burroughs, TSgt Melissa Post, TSgt Joe C., SFC John Hill George Smith, Lt Col (Join to see), Col Dona Marie Iversen

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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?

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.