What also emerges from recent history is a new appreciation of the impact of a decision not to use force. The clearest example is Rwanda, where non-intervention almost surely forfeited an opportunity to accomplish much good at limited cost. In other instances Bosnia comes to mind limits on the peacekeepers' mission kept costs down but also placed a ceiling on what they were likely to accomplish. The same can be said for the nation- buiTding exercise in Haiti, which reduced the risk to U.S. forces by limiting efforts to disarm locals. Taken as a whole, what is most noteworthy about the principal American military interventions over the past five years is their number and range.
Military force continues to be relevant for a wide range of tasks.
One conclusion that follows from this judgment is the continuing need for a large, flexible U.S. military. This said, the United States does not have the luxury of maintaining a military that is tailored only to traditional battlefielcis. The dismal showing of the Apache helicopters in Kosovo the problems of getting them there and their operational difficulties is a strong warning that the U.S. military needs great flexibility, a force that is easily moved and capable of coping with a wide range of missions and environments. Still, even an ideal military cannot succeed if it is undermined by either of two constraints. A different form of reluctance to commit is that involving ground troops.