Interesting aside -- note how many of the interventions listed corresponding to a Democrat in the White House were failures or fiascos: Iran hostage rescue attempt, Somalia, Vietnam, Cuba, and, to an extent, Korea.

What did they expect? Bayonets are wonderful things; you can do anything with them except sit on them.

Also Nicaragua, the comrade who wrote the article left out Nicaragua.

Another important thing to remember is that once the struggle with Communism was resolved, the # of wars worldwide has steadily declined.

The biggest problem with his analysis though are his factor generating anti-American terrorism. It is not caused by global poverty (which is declining anyway) who are bombed indiscriminately. It is caused by Islamic and Arab supremacist sentiments fueled by oil wealth and encouraged by governments who wish to displace the anger of their own people against themselves to the US.

It was perpetuated because Cold War politics prevented full scale reprisals. That encouraged the belief that terrorism was an effective means of gaining their political ends. Subsequent inertia and complacency after 1990 did not change that policy. Now that terrorism is receiving negative reinforcement by the destruction of terrorist leaders and assets, we should see support for it drop as it will obviously not lead to victory.

Not all US military interventions have been decisive and some were misguided and should not have been done, but that does not obscure the general advance of American aims and betterment of the world.

America does need a better doctrine that is explained to the American people and accepted so that public support is improved. This will be vital for interventions that result in conflict like in Somalia. Such a discussion and debate is essential because 1) it would mean the govt would authorize less interventions because it knows the public would not support casaulties to achieve its aims, and 2) those interventions that are authorized would receive more support so victory is achieved.

The problem with both Vietnam and Iraq is not that the US cannot defeat insurgents or guerillas. It's that Presidents and Congress fail in securing proper public support for the sacrifice needed for victory and fail to manage morale. Both LBJ and W initially downplayed the strength of the initial resistance and combat needed to secure the ground, both made military mistakes and denied them that eroded public confidence that the leadership knew how to win, and both mishandled relations with the local government.

In the case of LBJ, his opponents were strong enough that this defect became lethal. It appears in W's case that the opponents are not strong enough. However, in both cases such opposition could have been greatly reduced.

Handling morale in war is always tricky and modern communications make it harder than Lincoln or FDR had it. But it is something our leaders will need to improve as the one weapon our enemies use best is against our morale.

No, it was caused by Wilson's choice of transnationalism over self-determination. In betraying his own and our ideals he bequeathed us an additional hundred years of the bloody Long War.

I'll second that OJ. Teddy was the first, worst Perot.

By the way, what in the world is number 2, Egypt 1956?

In 1956, Israel, Great Britain and France attacked Egypt to undo the seizure of the Suez Canal. Not only didn't the US participate, but we intervened diplomatically in Egypt's behalf and made them give it back.

Of the eighteen on that list (David is right about Egypt and to include the Iranian hostage rescue attempt is absurd), I count at least thirteen with allies, often desperate ones. Pretty crafty for a loose cannon just trying to impose its will.

Chris it's pertinent that in both instances the domestic opponents were/are left-wing anti-American/anti-capitalists harbored within the Democrat Party. The author of this piece is probably the EU version of the same ilk.