The use of large-scale military force in volatile regions of underdeveloped countries is difficult to do right, has major unintended consequences and rarely turns out to be quick, effective, controlled and short lived.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Military dictatorship, you can focus on it, you can fight it directly. It's a band of power-driven people.
The military might of a country represents its national strength. Only when it builds up its military might in every way can it develop into a thriving country.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
As we've seen, deploying large armies abroad won't always be our best offense. Countries typically don't want foreign soldiers in their cities and towns.
If there is one lesson for U.S. foreign policy from the past 10 years, it is surely that military intervention can seem simple but is in fact a complex affair with the potential for unintended consequences.
Countries that intervene militarily rarely do so out of pure altruism.
Developments in information technology and globalised media mean that the most powerful military in the history of the world can lose a war, not on the battlefield of dust and blood, but on the battlefield of world opinion.
If politics and business fail us, of course the military will be called in. In the developing world, the massive and repeated ecological disasters are quite commonly met by the military.
Every decision to use military force is an excruciatingly difficult one.
Lightly armed nations can move toward war just as easily as those which are armed to the teeth, and they will do so if the usual causes of war are not removed.