In Tigerhawk’s answer he doesn’t explain why it was/is in America’s interests to be so heavily involved in places like Mogadishu, Lebanon, and the region in general. He seems to assume that the US presence in other parts of the world is so vital that the only question we have to discuss is how to retaliate rather than is it all worth it? It may well be but since the same Americans also talk about the need to ‘retaliate’ against Russia over unimportant South Ossetia or in the past Serbia over Kosovo it leaves the impression that the hawks believe that all conflicts in all places are vital to American security. War is necessary from time to time, of course, but is perpetual war in the remotest of places also necessary? If so, then a real explanation – as opposed to ‘spreading democracy’, ‘we need the oil’ – for why it is so necessary is long overdue.