It's like everything else in life, if you don't practice it you will never be any good at it. We need to remain a waring nation and declaring oureslves to be keepers of the peace and gladiators for democracy. Only through the threat of total annihilation will the tyrants of the world concede.
Think if Trump get elected how much resistance he will face with in all phases of our country from people to military to politicians. He must not win.
Aaaaaaaaaah.....man has been killing man since the beginning of time. You can correlate this to the Greek Hydra but with a twist. Our Version has technology, which means it's even harder to kill. So what we kill those here now......10 more rise up that we know nothing about.
The decision to undertake military action is not a light one. Lives can, and often are, lost in the process. Resources are also limited and in the looming era of austerity, difficult funding decisions lie ahead. Military action should be undertaken when no reasonable non-military alternatives exist, critical national interests are at stake, a country (or key ally) has been attacked or is under a credible, imminent threat of attack, and/or perhaps some situation with profound human consequences is underway.
Most would-be humanitarian interventions don't meet such criteria. IMO, Somalia didn't during the 1990s. Neither does Syria today. Civil conflict is not confined to Syria. Numerous parts of the world continue to experience civil conflict coupled with gruesome crimes against humanity. Genocide is the single humanitarian case that rises to the level where military action could be justified on humanitarian grounds alone. As brutal as the Assad regime has been against its foes, genocide is not underway nor is it imminent.
By 23 February, Gaddafi was suffering from the resignations and defections of close allies, from the loss of Benghazi, the fall of Tobruk, Misrata, Bayda, Zawiya, Zuwara, Sabratha, Sorman, and mounting international isolation and pressure. By the end of February, Gaddafi's government had lost control of a significant part of Libya, including the major cities of Misrata and Benghazi, and the important harbors at Ra's Lanuf and Brega. But in March, Gaddafi's forces pushed the rebels back and eventually reached Benghazi and Misrata.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith
In the meantime, the best thing we can do diplomatically speaking is to keep applying pressure to Russia. As I mentioned before, convincing Russia to drop Assad is certainly not impossible and really just a matter of time. I mean take a look at China (who also vetoed the UN resolution along with Russia and Iran). China is now starting to indicate that they would be willing to support a UN peacekeeping measure. If China switching sides, that will leave Russia in a VERY uncomfortable position. Russia has already voiced concerns about the regime and is scrambling to arrange and mediate talks between Assad and the opposition, before Assad dooms himself.
Furthermore, if the West lays a legitimate threat of using force on the table, I'm willing to bet that will be a much stronger incentive for Assad to open talks than any of the carrots he's been offered so far. He has no intentions of ending up with like Gaddafi - with a free steak knife colonoscopy. Right now, Assad's best bet for survival is to utilize his military advantage over the largely unarmed, unorganized masses. And that means Assad is banking on the West not stepping in.
So far he's been right.