Never said it was, and again, I don't think the Iraq fiasco is right. But then again, your answer is not exactly specific. We, the military, are blamed for not taking action, and blamed for taking action and you can't have it both ways.
The question was posed to those who would like to blame the military for all the evils in the world. The few that would like to call all military baby killers. We're all jumping up and down frothing at the mouth to feel dead, burnt bodies, veins in our teeth shouting kill! Kill! Kill!
It's bullshit of course.
The unfortunate thing about wars is that they are sometimes necessary. All the diplomacy in the world is worthless unless your stick is bigger than theirs. It's plain that the embargos enforced against Saddam did nothing but hurt his people and open up all sorts of opportunities for corruption. They sure as hell haven't done anything to Castro.
If you want something bad enough, like preventing the systematic brutalization and genocide of a minority population by a majority population, chances are your going to have to have an armed intervention to establish peace. Chances are even higher that somebody is going to decide to attack members of the peace keeping force which will then have to decide to get the hell out, allowing the genocide to begin again, kill the offenders by returning fire, or hunt them down and bring them to trial which exposes more of your personnel to the possibility of getting killed.
The world is beautiful, man can be quite ugly.