So is it your contention that the United States can obtain a desired result in the Middle East through the judicious use of military power? Sounds very much like the same argument the neocons make.
Obtaining desired results by military action in the Middle East, or at least North Africa, was a principal reason for the formation of the United States. After the American Revolution, when American merchants lost the protection of the British empire, our ships plying the Mediterreanean became a favorite prey for the Barbary pirates. Without the power to raise a navy, the Articles of Confederation left the States unable to defend the sea routes. That fact was a principal reason for the constitutional convention that created the US.
Hitler liked dogs. Me too. Paul Wolfwitz has an undergraduate degree in physics. Me too again. Despite these coincidences, I'm not a Nazi or a Neocon, but I do believe that the reason we have a military is to use it judiciously.
That puts a heavy weight on the word "judiciously." I believe that the Neocon war on Iraq was multiply injudicious - it was launched under false pretences, it was poorly prepared for, it was undertaken for specious goals, and no consideration was given to what to do once occupation had been achieved. Essentially all the blame for this monumental injudiciousness goes to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their idiot Neocon cheerleaders.
The Afghanistan war, by contrast, was launched for perfectly sensible reasons - revenge against bin Laden and elimination of his threat. Once again the Neocon idiots mucked it up by taking their eyes off the ball - and letting bin Laden escape - to pursue their aims of Middle Eastern empire.