Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
How did that work out for us?
It generally achieved our strategic objectives (Saddam contained/not slaughtering Kurds, helped end genocide in FRY (once we chose to actually use airpower), Serbs withdrew from Kosovo)... without resorting to ground combat. I'm not saying it was effective in resolving the situations completely, but like I said, you do what you can afford to when it isn't an existential threat.

Consider also that if your conjectures of what might have been are removed and what was is considered, WW II was not existential. The only existential war the US has fought was our own Civil War -- which also and not coincidentally had the highest per capita casualty rate. All our other wars have been to disrupt, delay, deter or remove potential threats (think about WW II...). Old JMA on other threads lambastes our obvious lack of consistent policy -- but we do have a few and that one has been around for 220+ years -- we're pretty easy going but we do not tolerate potential threats. Just make noise and no problem, get bothersome and get hurt a bit (and not necessarily militarily...), get too serious and get removed...
Agree that WWI probably wasn't, Civil War definitely was. I stand by my words on WWII - I don't think we would have co-existed with the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and the Third Reich for long. I agree that in 1941 we were not threatened with immediate destruction... but how long before someone pulls the trigger do they become a deadly threat to you?

V/R,

Cliff