That's another undisclosed cost of multiculturalism, when a western government intervenes in a "troubled" land they run the risk of inflaming an insurgency on their own soil involving disgruntled expatriates and immigrants from that region.
All of the trouble in the world at present stems from the ideology of Islam and all of the "troubled" societies with the exception of central Africa are predominantly Muslim so any intervention in any theatre runs the risk of sparking a backlash at home.
Westerners will tolerate military casualties up to a point but public beheadings,shootings and the myriad oppressions and humiliations of day to day life alongside a Muslim minority are rapidly wearing out our patience and I'd guess this rising anger in the community has not escaped the notice of politicians.

Countries 'needing' intervention are victims of their own dysfunction. They should be left to live with what they have brought on themselves, or sort it out for themselves. There is no reason why civilized countries should risk their people doing it for them.

Agree with most of what you say and the case for early intervention you make!
Without which we have instead managed to make over 50 million homeless refugees!

Simply put a small U.N. sanctioned task force equipped with ultra reliable intell, and night sight equipment etc, could have simply surgically removed the power hungry dictators one by one, Who have been and are responsible for all the the genocide!

To that end, the paralysing power of veto must be removed form the security council and replaced with say, a two thirds or better majority in favor?

And that would require the agreement of most of the U.N. And therefore, just not doable?

Which if remotely successful, well might result in a dictatorial land grabbing, resource purloining Putin being removed When vulnerable, as the only available solution to the Ukrainian crisis or genocide?

Say as a S.A.M missile or missiles, that brings destroys his aircraft and sabre rattling entourage midair, when flying over neutral territory; seems not only apt, but perfect justice?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty it's the power hungry dictators who keep the peace, when you have to govern populations with a median IQ of 80 the use of force is necessary, besides, what happened when they removed Saddam? Straight away the Shia people turned Al Sadr's Mehdi Army and the Sunni minority to their various armed Sheikhs and tribal Mujahideen for leadership.
Just get used to the idea that 95% of the people in the world don't care for liberalism, democracy and human rights but prefer dynastic hierarchy, patriarchy and religion.

The entire population of Africa, the middle east & eastern Europe are basically a waste of space.

We must not waste a single Ozzie serviceman's life on any of them. It is time to get out & let them stew.

If people like our author want to stick someone's nose into other peoples affairs, let it be theirs. Our defence force is just that, not a moral policeman for idiots.

Rhrosty why do you expect any sensible action from that disgusting cesspit that is the UN. It is controlled by the war lords & despots that rule much of the world, along with a good helping of "leaders" of tin pot republics that masquerade as elected governments.

If we want any sense or justice in the world, the UN should be the first target, not the arbitrator.

What to do to help?
Maybe if we let countries spend their money on social services like health and education, rather than the IMF and World Bank insisting on slashing social spending, and privatising essential utilities, that might help. Maybe if we practiced debt forgiveness to free innocent people from unjust debt often obtained by corrupt governments - the poor who saw none of the money but are left to pay for generations to come - that might help.

Surely if we have learnt nothing else, we have learnt you can't bomb people to freedom. It causes chaos and misery. It doesn't address the issues of extreme poverty and corruption which is at the heart of the problem.

Unfortunately the status quo suits those in power so things are unlikely to change.

We will continue to bomb countries so their resources can be extracted (eg oil,gas) by corporations. Our leaders will tell us we need to go to war to give the people freedom - we would never support these wars otherwise. But how many times have we heard this line? (fool me once ...) Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya - how come they never get the freedom and the prosperity they were promised? Is it possible the real purpose isn't freedom? How many corporations have enriched themselves during these wars? Ask yourself who benefits?

John Perkins was an economic hitman whose job was to corrupt various leaders, for the benefit of US corporations. Here is an interview in which he outlines how the West corrupts governments to get what they want. And if they don't play ball, then they are overthrown or assassinated. While tyrants who play the game are protected eg Pinochet, House of Saud etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVsB07CcSNw

R2P is a sham. If we really cared about people we would send more foreign aid, not bombs. If we really cared we wouldn't turn our backs on the refugees our wars have displaced. Once we get what we want out of a country our desire to protect the people seems to evaporate. Isn't that strange?

War is Peace donchaknow

Love Peace Justice