So, Bush believed that all military missions should be based on U.S. strategic interests and should have clear objectives and exit strategies. He does not want to over commit the armed forces and would like to see allies shoulder more responsibility in terms of regional conflicts. Bush believes that U.S. regional priorities consist of Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Far East, and he strongly supports maintaining U.S. presence in NATO. He feels that the U.S. should be prepared for military intervention if necessary, but that a strong military will act as a deterrent to security threats.
Gore assailed Bush's proposal to withdraw U.S. forces from the Balkans saying it would be "a damaging blow to NATO" and would jeopardize other U.S. alliances. He has defined six criteria for deciding whether to deploy the military: (1) Is the mission in U.S. national interests? (2) Is military force the only way to solve the conflict? (3) Have all other options been exhausted? (4) Will force solve the problem? (5) Do we have the support of allies? (6) Is the cost of the operation proportionate to the objective? Gore's policy of "forward engagement" calls for early diplomatic intervention to prevent the need for future military deployment.
:)
<span>The answer for this question would be Alexander the Great's. He is recognized as 'the great' both for his military mastermind and his political skills in managing the numerous populations of the regions he occupied. His conquests freed the West from the threat of Persian rule and extent Greek civilization and principles into Asia and Egypt.</span>
