The U.S. has all sorts of resources. They have the ability to get complete data on the leadership of an organization and use any of various means to keep the organization in check.
When the U.S. goes up against a complicated country with an advanced military and sophisticated leaders they use peaceful means effectively. So why would it be necessary to use complicated heavy weapons against uneducated poorly armed village types?
There must be some reason that less effective tools, like the military, are used.
Some people speculate..
1) Maybe it has to do with the financial infrastructure of the global munitions business. No longer an industry segregated by countries, today the same groups collaborate on profiting from both sides of a war.
2) Maybe some local interest, zionists are a popular focus of this theory, has an interest in promoting certain conflicts for strategic reasons.
3) Maybe it is ultimately run by ivory tower intellectuals who have some perverse needs met by pretending to guide countries one body at a time.
If there were no fights between various clearly identified groups then mass psychology would force such groups to come into existence. There always has to be some struggle going on. Is it better to have "managed wars" and reduce the risk of real war breaking out? It's like gmo foods. It looks good on paper but people who have common sense don't support fake wars any more than they feed their families Monsanto meat if they can avoid it
http://moralmatters.org/2013/05/24/the-monsanto-monster-genetically-modified-food/