This is a very harsh way of making the case against military solutions (dead-end solutions), but I believe people have to put themselves in the feet of those on the receiving end of bombs dropping on them. Why not have foreign military intervention every time a country experiences internal social strife? And why not go after the natural resources that the vanquished country has, and leave its population destitute, so that markets continue to enjoy preeminence? I suspect that very soon Portugal will have workers and middle class professionals demonstrating in Lisbon, just as Londoners did and will again in protest of wealth redistribution from the bottom up.
Why not have NATO bombs drop on Lisbon to prevent the government from sending out the police to stop demonstrators? For the noble goal of strengthening markets, why shouldn't the state resort to military solutions first and ask questions later? Who is more delusional, the advocate of political solutions to sociopolitical conflict, or the warmonger policymakers and profiteers standing in line behind them as the only way to retain their privileged positions at the cost of mass destruction? Is it any wonder that advanced capitalist nations have the highest consumption of psychotherapy services and products on the planet not only because they can afford them, but because they really need them to cope with a culture of destruction?