'..military power .. if recent history is any guide, what it clearly cannot be in the twenty-first century is a policymaking instrument, a means of altering the world to fit a scheme..'<blockquote>'What planet are we now on? Why is it that military power, the mightiest imaginable, can't overcome, pacify, or simply destroy weak powers, less than impressive insurgency movements, or the ragged groups of (often tribal) peoples we label as "terrorists"? Why is such military power no longer transformative or even reasonably effective? Is it, to reach for an analogy, like antibiotics? If used for too long in too many situations, does a kind of immunity build up against it?
Let's be clear here: such a military remains a powerful potential instrument of destruction, death, and destabilization. For all we know - it's not something we've seen anything of in these years - it might also be a powerful instrument for genuine defense. But if recent history is any guide, what it clearly cannot be in the twenty-first century is a policymaking instrument, a means of altering the world to fit a scheme developed in Washington. The planet itself and people just about anywhere on it seem increasingly resistant in ways that take the military off the table as an effective superpower instrument of state.
Washington's military plans and tactics since 9/11 have been a spectacular train wreck..
..
What our leaders don't get is the most basic, practical fact of our moment: war simply doesn't work, not big, not micro - not for Washington. A superpower at war in the distant reaches of this planet is no longer a superpower ascendant but one with problems.
The US military may be a destabilization machine. It may be a blowback machine. What it's not is a policymaking or enforcement machine.'
- Tom Engelhardt,
Tiny wars still don't work, October 29, 2013</blockquote>
Context<blockquote>
(NATO - Russia - China) - '..Central Asia .. the US will gradually disengage from the region..'</blockquote>