He did say. Putting troops on the ground, and with the numbers and mandate to actually do something and engage the fighting parties. With bombing campaigns, you're levelling a country and killing civilians in the hope that at some point their leaders will give in, which they may or may not do, but in the meantime they keep killing.
Yeah, but on the other hand, it's really hard to kill a bomb, and few people care if you do. If you put US troops on the ground, US troops will
die, no matter how they try to prevent it. If it's a case that has absolutely no direct baring on US citizens, then they'd better have a damned good reason for being there if we're putting Us soldiers at risk. We can drop bombs though with very minimal chance of US loss of lives. Now, if both sides agreed to not shoot at US soldiers, then I guess we could get in there, but in places like Syria they're even shooting at those guys with the wussy blue hats!
To try and better those 3 is frankly fruitless and impossible, there just aren't enough people or enough money so you just live with how things are.
North Korean manages it.
That is of course an arrangement made within the NATO, and the US agreed to it because their alliance with Europe was of vital interest for their economy,
Keeping in mind that NATO is and always was essentially (to the tune of Gilligan's Island) "A-meeerica. . . and the rest," a diplomatic window dressing to allow American forces to adequately defend Europe from the commies while giving at least a fig leaf that Western Europe had some say in the matter.
My point is more about Ogul's continual assertation that the US alone defends Europe. The British or the French alone could have wiped the entire region off the map if they so wanted.
With nukes? Yes, but nobody really wants that. Using conventional means, both countries have their resources, but are still fairly limited in scope. Remember Libya? That was a situation in which the US had pretty much zero
stake, it was a mostly France issue (outside of Libya itself, of course), and yet the US shouldered most of the costs in the form of drone attacks. Why couldn't France have used her own
drones? If Europe were capable of handling issues that take place outside of the US's direct interest, we'd be happy to let them, but almost every time they've had the opportunity to step up without us, we get dragged into it anyways because they either can't, or won't.