Supply-Induced Demand for Military Intervention

One of the long-simmering controversies on the Internet is whether increased US investment in counterinsurgency capabilities actually makes it more likely that the US will engage in misguided "regime change" interventions in the future. Watching the Libya debate, whatever you think of the merits of intervening, I think clearly counts as data that supply-induced demand for military intervention is a real phenomenon. If it just weren't logistically possible for the United States to launch air strikes into Libyan territory, nobody would be saying that our inability to do so is scandalous or irresponsible. But given that we can intervene, it looks to many people like a failure of "leadership" to stand aside.

Conversely, one important reason we're ruling out ground troops right now is that we clearly don't have any to spare. But if in the future we develop more "excess capacity" in our national security apparatus, then the number of global problems that appear to call for killing people leadership will go up. Then when people wonder why our humanitarian concern seems so politicized and hypocritical we'll be urged to "grow up" and stop complaining.