military intervention

The United States intervened militarily in Syria under the premise of the “war on terror” and the fight against ISIS, but
This information was never written into the official narrative, because it was important for the U.S. and NATO that their
President Barack Obama won election in 2008 promising an end to "dumb wars," and since then, he's vowed to avoid major troop commitments. Yet, even after all the fallout from recent interventions -- including, more recently, the spread of ISIS terrorism to Europe -- foreign policy hawks keep pushing Obama to send ground troops to Syria.
In an era when there has been failure aplenty for the U.S. military, disappointing results have become the new norm across the Greater Middle East and Africa, which undoubtedly breeds frustration in Washington.
When your group or country is attacked and civilians are killed (even if accidentally), a rally-around-the-flag effect usually occurs.
The Road to Iraq is a work of tremendous intellectual diligence and moral seriousness.
Bombing Syria will eventually lead to boots on the ground, and then what? We will produce more destruction in Syria, as we have already seen in Iraq, and only increase the hatred of the people of the Middle East toward the United States.
Our celebrity culture has turned us all into armchair therapists who put even our president on the couch to analyze his personality flaws. But when the label of "detached" acquires a political spin, it's no longer just nonsense. It becomes dangerous.
The current problem of Iraq will not be resolved by sending more U.S. troops, drones, or jets to Iraq. A U.S. military presence would only bring back the same problems associated with the invasion and occupation of the country. The United States can do something, however.
Great nations decline and fall through a fatal combination of too many wars abroad and a hollowing-out of institutions at home. If America gets its own house in order while leading coalitions abroad, we will do the world great good