Some strategic threats: Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and frankly any country that harbors non-state actors that can pose a threat to this country acting as surrogates for those listed above. Militant Islamic fundamentalism poses a global threat.
I was addressing Libya as a perfect example of a break it/fixit rule. We should not have intervened. How about Egypt, How about Iraq.
You don't understand why Obama was compelled to intervene in Libya leading from behind. When Libya was disintegrating, it affected oil production that went primarily to Europe and were owned partially by Europeans. Even more importantly, as Libya fell into chaos, the Italians were faced with a massive infusion of boat people fleeing Libya and North Africa. It had to be turned off and the way to do it was to resolve the Libyan civil war.
We didn't intervene in Egypt. Obama made a major mistake in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and alienating the military. Egypt was a close ally and we should not have thrown Mubarak under the bus. It hurt us in the region.
We did the right thing in intervening in Iraq--twice. We should have finished the job during the Gulf War.
Afghanistan initially was a response to a attack on our homeland. I was good with what Bush did. I hollered like a banshee when Obama turned it into a project and now he is leaving it too early just as he did Iraq, and all the crap we stirred up will just return to the outhouse in both places and all that investment and lives were totally wasted.
Bush started making it a nation-building exercise. We should have had a SOFA with Iraq and now one with Afghanistan. America is war-weary. There is no stomach for keeping large numbers of troops in Afghanistan. And we have a President who will not articulate the need to stay there and build the necessary public support.
A generation is 30 years as a rule for the first turnover. After that mathematically it starts to accelerate to get a total turnover based on at what age the kids are born to the new generation to make the third turnover. To change a countries political future and teach them new tricks that they have never done before, the generation that was there when you intervened will not be able to hold it together after the first problem arises. They will revert to the old ways, but the second generation educated in a modern way by the interventionist. (ie: us) Will have the knowledge and will not have the old wounds of a millennia of strife and inter tribal bigotry.
LOL. I don't buy into your sophistry. It depends on the country. Japan and Germany evolved very quickly. It depends on the country, its history, and its people.
kabar....Interventions take many forms.
Interventions do not require one to stay and rebuild.
That is called a occupation.
I am referring in my analysis to occupations but interventions can go bad. But we are not responsible for that.
You are conflating everything I have said with everything I have said. Get back to the basics, the occupations.
We have done two since Vietnam, Israel has done two.
All have failed or are about to fail.
Of our interventions, we have done more than two,I just can’t recall the other African stuff but Libya, and Egypt were two of them and they have failed or are about to fail...ahh...the other was Somalia. Epic fail!
In these cases you should never have gone in because they were too unstable and there really was no reason to do it at the time. Israel could have easily taken out Egypt if it attacked. We should not have been giving them money, aid or anything to the Egyptians. All we needed to do was support Israel. Just wait...the Egypt thing is far from over..
The Libya oil was only important to us because we had one refinery on the East coast that needed that sweet crude.
One refinery.
What got going on that was the media. They loved it.
Root for the underdog...big drama.
Big BS