The only item I think that is missing in this synopsis is the role of the UN. I know------they are for all intents and purposes powerless, hardly having enough of a budget to survive, let alone any realistic weaponry. But maybe, they really don't need it. Their long suit is in getting countries to cooperate; they could easily find willing individual combatants from nearly any military in the world, such as special forces or commando groups. In most cases that would be all they would need. The drawback would be internal discipline of such people.

Texan religious fundamentalists are inherently critical of international policing efforts. That is why George W. Bush ended up in this logjam, whereas George Bush, Sr. didn't seem to have a problem with it. Nevertheless, with GWB's course we get to read about all the collateral damage in our daily headlines. If somebody else is shouldering the responsibility it's second page material, at best.

If Trump gets elected, it would be interesting to see what stance he takes toward UN actions----since they are NYC neighbors. True there are many people at the UN who are openly critical or hostile to the US. They don't have that much actual power, and most of them are not, at least at this time. Make some more unilateral moves that end up with thousands dead and this will worsen.