When you fight a war you destroy the enemy and his property until he no longer can fight.
You do not go into his country and try to convince him that your political ideas for his country are right.
It’s more a post-modern variation on the Cold War, only with bursts of military activity and soft occupation added to the mix—mostly in the name of containment.
It’s easy enough to argue they are failures but the idea of “containment” is one that can only be tested over decades. And there are sure to be failures along the way in any case.
I agree with you that if measured the way traditional war is measured, forget it, they are disasters one and all.
Personally, I preferred the pre-Frank Church Committee/CIA op era, in which we installed our own dictatorship into these backwashes and propped them up best we could or until they collapsed of their own corruption. Generally, there was less bloodshed (save for North Korea and Vietnam of course where we stumbled into the new form of “war”).
But back then, when there were two superpowers, there was little uncertainty about which power was best suited to dominate the world. That only started AFTER the new generation leftists began to infiltrate congress.
“Neo conservatism” is sort of a half-assed position staked out to modulate the “peace now” sound effect of the left. It’s probably doomed.
These undeclared wars have led to crazy ROE’s.
You have to let your enemy shoot you before you can shoot back and if a civilian is anywhere near then you cannot shoot back then.
This is a prescription for getting your people killed.