The intervention occurs with a humanitarian purpose, as in a country that just had a couple of its cities wasted by a natural disaster, like a tsunami or tornado.
Or in a country which its population has been suffering from hunger for decades due to political crises or coups
It can be ineffective or even destructive when:
It's a military extreme intervention on a city or country that although on war, it's still very populated by civilians. Like it was in the War on Terror campaign, started by the US after the 9/11 terrorist assault, with American invasion on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and others. It ended up being effective, with even the fall of Al-Qaeda's terrorist organization leader in 2011, but in the process several cases of violent acts against and deaths of civilians were reported.
I believe they’re referring to the Tuskegee Airmen. Here a link to an article about them https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/world-war-ii/tuskegee-airmen
Reagan favored this because he "<span>a. thought the federal government was too big" since he thought that the federal government was inhibiting people's ability to be prosperous. </span>