Louise,
"Of course, when enlisted troops get a little too mavericky, this can happen"
No, at every level this is the essential job of a military force.
But I do see what it is that you are mis-understanding.
Basically the place to start is on any elementary school playground. Inevitably some child learns that he/she can bluff other children into knuckling under if they convince the other child into believing they, the bully, are more willing to hurt the victim than vise versa. Now teachers, other children, etc, will often try to reason with the bully and sometimes it works. However for many bullies bullying has become virtually a win win situation and reason does not apply. All he/she has to do is be willing to use their greater willingness to hurt the victim and they win.
Once the bully passes this point of being willing to hurt their victims more than the victim is willing or capable of reciprocating against the bully the bully will continue to bully.
So how do you break the cycle? You have to be willing and able to hurt that bully worse than he/she can hurt you.
That is the purpose of a military if it is not being used to bully. I often question people to see if they can sustain a charge that our military is used for that purpose. Perhaps that happened occasionally with the American Indians. Certainly it is untrue in our other wars.
However the US military has shown itself very good at convincing bullies they are willing and able to win those sorts of contests. We will hang in there far past the other guy's ability to bully.
You do not understand that the only possible response to a bully that continues a policy of inflicting hurt is to out-hurt him or her. Your policy only increases the number of deaths that results from the aggression of the bully. Of course in the end you achieve nothing as the bully will have to be dealt with violently. Losing more than he or she gains is all that will stop him or her.
Ron

Well, Ron, thank you for addressing all the points I made in my last post, and in such an avuncular tone.

Yes, Grenada was a terrible bully that no doubt had to be set straight by the use of military intervention.

This is your view on US military intervention around the world, which is contrary to peacemaking of any sort.

Louise,
"Yes, Grenada was a terrible bully that no doubt had to be set straight by the use of military intervention."

To make that line of attack work you are totally dependent on my and the rest of your readers being completely ignorant of the facts. Sorry.
Grenada distills down to one question. Why did Reagan send in the troops?
A man, I forget the names, had conducted a coup or a revolution and displaced the legal leader of Grenada's government. That was dictator #1. Then he was displaced by a coup led by dictator @2. Dictator #2 assasinated dictator @1.
Grenada was wanted by the Internation Communist movement then led by the Soviets as it sat astride the shipping lanes used by ships supplying us our oil. That would have completed a blockade, along with Nicaraga, of our Gulf Coast and our ability to have any access to South America.
Then the Cubans sent a military construction battalion in to build runways suitable for heavy bombers. They were equipped with anti aircraft weapons among other weapons.
As you proudly claim to be completely ignorant of military affairs you followed the PC crowd and noticed nothing.
That was reason #1.
There was a medical school located on the island popular with American students who had been unable to find a place in American medical schools. Those students were effectively held hostage to our conduct while the airbase for bombers was being built.
As before you took no notice of that and by now have completely forgotten the conduct of the dictator who violently replaced an earlier dictator who had illegally replaced the last legitimate leader of the island.

"Well, Ron, thank you for addressing all the points I made in my last post, and in such an avuncular tone."
You are welcome, please feel free to try another of your ill informed attacks anytime you please.

"US military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan serves no purpose except US interests and the military-industrial complex."
It only serves the purpose of the survival of the US and Western Civilization. However as that is of no interest to you I assume that reason is insufficient.
Ron

Funny you do not even consider alternatives to military intervention. Ever your first resort, not your last one.

I guess the invasion of Grenada took people's minds off the Marine barracks being blown up in Lebanon.

Got to watch those in the grip of PC thinking, Ron. Military intervention is always necessary, right?

Louise,
"You swallow Bush-Cheney propaganda whole, then accuse me of being PC. What a joke"
Are you attempting to tell me that I am being non PC? PC is a tactic invented by the Frankfort School and I do not accept them as an authority on anything.
Secondly, what did Bush-Cheney have to do with Grenada-Beriut? Don't you have even a basic grasp of events that happened during your own life?
At least you are fairly good at memorizing the PC line and letting it substitute for thinking.
Ron

It has to do with this:

Louise, mi pobre,
" even going so far as to say that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan serve the purpose of the survival of Western civilization."
I forgot every morning you are born into a brand new world and can remember only one overriding thought, hate America at all cost and in all things.
You really have no idea what led up to Afghanistan do you? You don't know that OBL the architect of the attack on New York City that murdered 3,000 of your fellow citizens. That is perfectly okay with you, isn't it? You don't know that OBL represents a segment of Islam that has been spreading Islam by the sword since 622 AD. Again that is okay with you because obviously we started the whole thing in 621 AD -- don't let that be too subtle for you.
Your ignorance is pathetic.
Ron

Your war-mongering ignorance is pathetic.

Thank you, Louise,
I will take that as a badge of honor and regale my buddies with stories of your PC naivete.
Ron

Darrel,
"Couldn't agree more. So many drink the Gov Kool-Aid.. . . Must taste great."
You made that comment in response to Louise having said, "Your war-mongering ignorance is pathetic"
Why would you call me a "war monger" and use the term "ignorance" to describe me?
Do you have a reason for taking that position or did it just sound like a good idea at the time?
Ron