On the contrary, the intervention to these countries has caused chaos and disorder. This statement can possibly be denied by the explanation that the war was not the absolutely desirable way out to stabilize situation in the country, and was actually aimed at creating new society with democratic values, but the fact that presence of the terrorist organizations was only suspicion, and it is yet not understood, after so many years of war, whether this war was the best solution for the problems which existed between the two countries. It has caused deaths of thousands people of the common population but has not yet reached its goal of destroying terrorist groups. Thus, suspicion is not enough to start and hold wars. Thus, we come to another argument against wars - innocent people mostly become the victims of the political games, which often turn into wars.
Modern times represent us with the new kinds of wars, which countries and peoples can have against each other, starting from physical (military), and ending with the informational and oil (gas) wars. The issue of the innocent people is more related to the fact when one speaks about military actions.
'While the image of bombers flying over Afghanistan and bombing a people whose average lifespan is about 45 years of age and who are suffering terrible deprivation already -- not least due to the Taliban, which the U.S. helped create and empower -- is horrifying enough, it is important to realize that death and deprivation come in many forms. Even without widespread bombing, if the threat to attack the civilian population or outright coercion of other countries leads to curtailment of food aid to Afghanistan, the ensuing starvation could kill a million or more Afghans by mid-winter. Is this the appropriate response to terror' (Fisher, 2003)
Any military actions at any territory cannot be held without victims. The core of any military action is in its sudden and unexpected character, and thus to save the innocent population from the threat of war is almost impossible. On the other hand, states which come to the decision to start war, hardly think of the common population which will ultimately fall as a victim of war, without any political result for the states guaranteed.
War as an action may lead to the state-initiator losing its allies
Any state, which prepares a war with another state, has to carefully consider the probability of losing political allies, which may oppose to any military actions. This argument should be taken into account, as a state cannot function without political allies; otherwise it will be isolated or supposed to be illegal. It seems to be impossible to relate this argument to the US; as such a strong state cannot ever been isolated, though the threat of losing its allies still exists and should not be underestimated. On the contrary, war may also become the instrument of the opposite side for coordinating and uniting its efforts with its allies, which may have negative consequences and only raise the scope of the military actions in the world.
'In the event of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, there would likely be an outbreak of widespread