Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
I submit we shouldn't be concerned with deterring such conflicts in that and several other locations around the world where we really have no interests...

Other than commercial, of course -- but that 'reason' is often ferociously overstated and embellished to appear far more valuable than it actually will be. The only real reason we stick our nose into a good many conflicts is that accursed and pathetic 'do gooder' mentality. It has done us no favors over the years.
I just mean US deterrence in general, the effect of the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union; not the result of any specific program of deterrence so much as just not being anyone out there willing to risk conflict with the US as they do their own Cost-Risk/benefit analysis.

Call it "hegemony" if you will. I think we had about 4-5 years at the end of WWII; and another longer period post Soviet collapse that is probably already over. I point this out to people (not you I suspect) who have bought into the wild idea that the future is all about Irregular Warfare and that major state on state warfare is largely obsolete. My personal opinion is that there are a lot of unresolved issues that have been temporarily set on hold or "frozen" due to US hegemony that will become increasingly active and violent if need be.

I think Central Asia, with its underdeveloped resources, and sitting between a lot of more powerful, resource hungry neighbors is a likely place for conflict. One that I agree we should stay completely out of.