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
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we remained only at the approval of the host government once one was formed. Iraq failed to negotiate a SOFA with us and we left. To call us occupiers is to misstate the reality.
We intervened during the Gulf War as part of a broad coalition and kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. They never returned to Kuwait. We have done many "interventions" as you label them since Vietnam.
The Libya oil was only important to us because we had one refinery on the East coast that needed that sweet crude.