Military intervention is often considered as the last resort after all political and diplomatic ways to tackle a conflict have been used. Nevertheless, even if these resources have been unsuccessful, a country shall not engage battle without questioning itself on whether to engage military forces. U.S. foreign policy has shown that this question shall be carefully thought. Naturally, national interests are one of the key matters in such a decision. As we remember the November 1979 U.S. hostage situation in Iran, we cannot deny that the need to rescue American citizens was against national interest. Nevertheless, one shall not consider national interest an excuse to intervene but a reason. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult for Presidents to point out the benefits for such interventions to the public, therefore creating a paradoxical situation where defending vital interest the U.S. Government is faced with people’s lack of understanding and even disapproval of the intervention. Why send our troop so far and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in such a war As Richard Haass points out in The debate over intervention " The United States can stay involved either if costs are low or if interest is high". In these decision taking moments, the President could benefit from the support of the public and the Congress, but clearly, it means consulting them which can take away the benefits of the surprise and takes a certain time. Understandingly, the President has to make a quick but well-thought move and also take necessary measures to have both the approval of the public and the Congress if the conflict is meant to last. This is the reason why while choosing to intervene the President has to set clear objectives which accordingly to Haass, should aim towards a unique goal. The case of the Bosnian war shows the drawback of having several goals at the same time. In 1993-1994, U.S. military was not able to achieve a successful peace-making nor a completely efficient humanitarian help. Knowing the place where the fights are going to take place as much as the enemy is as important as the intervention itself. Though it is vital for a regular intervention, it is even more crucial where the President is considering sending troops to tackle civil wars, revolutions or failed state. Vietnam showed us that without enough data about the field and the adversary, the war is keen to last over and over. As one can never predict what will happen on the battlefield, it is a mistake to try to set up the end of the intervention. This was also a lesson that was learned in Vietnam, soldiers have gone to fight several weeks and came home years after. Finally, we should not forget that the opponent is not the only audience and that in case of such interventions we have to consider the other countries who have ties with the one the intervention is supposed to take place and the international political opinion on that intervention. Once the decision of intervening is made, it is important to see how this intervention is going to be realized. As we said before, an intervention is considered when all the other diplomatic and political solutions have proved useless. . .