On the avoidance of small wars

[Dayuhan]

So what may I ask does Germany have to use as diplomatic leverage? A strong economy?

What the Libyan exercise proved beyond doubt is that only the US has the ability to sustain any such action at a meaningful tempo (as Libya would be classed as a minor intervention).

One might well ask what form of military leverage Germany needs... and the answer would probably be not much, beyond defense of the homeland. Why would the Germans want to project armed force around the world?

Remember this clown?

War is too serious a business to be left to the generals. - Georges Clemenceau

... this is the very same clown who was one of the major voices behind the Treaty of Versailles 1919 ... and we all know what that 'masterpiece' led to.

I'd say allowing Generals to decide when to make war is every bit as foolish as telling Generals how to make war. Determining policy objectives is not the competence or the business of the military.

I'd agree with Fuchs that the great majority of American small wars since WW2 have been pointless and counterproductive from the start, evidence of policy failure, not miitary failure, and most would have been better avoided.

How to stop doing that is another question. Clear, sensible assessments of interests, choice of practical, realistic, achievable goals, more awareness of potential for unintended consequences... that stuff helps, but it's like saying the antidote to stupidity is smartness. How to get some smartness into place is a bit of an issue. It's usually there, but it's all too often ignored.