Because it is a bad thing for the project. You're reading into this too much.

Re-occupying North Africa for its natural resources also guarantees the doom of the project in short order, as well as a huge cost of money, lives, CO2, and everything else.

"Ensuring stability with force" does not work. Stability can only be ensured with prosperity.

This seems incorrect, and maybe wishful thinking?. There have been many brutal societies (and colonies, empires and so on) that lasted for centuries.

Certainly a lot of military "interventions" in the past couple of decades have been pretty disastrous though.

I propose a "you break it you buy it" model. Until such time as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have peace and good governance, no more military adventures to spread liberal democracy.

Ensuring stability with force certainly works at the small scale the project needs.

Nobody is talking about re-occupying North Africa.

Again, you're reading too much into this. Maybe go back to Portland with that rhetoric?

Got any sources? You sound like you're poorly educated on the topic.

Well, it can't say it's bad, but it may not be realistic. Don't forget the famous war that was supposed to "ensure stability with force", and that's been lasting for almost 20 year. Things are certainly more complicated there, but it's fair to be skeptical that force can bring stability.

Reminds me of the Vietnam era "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"