So basically you hate my approach because it falls short of your perfect ideal, which you yourself acknowledge is impossible and unrealistic.
And since you acknowledge that the ideal is impossible and unrealistic, the only real point of holding it is to maintain a pretense that that's what you stand for. What you actually stand for are the things you believe should be done in the meantime, but those things are pretty much just nakedly imperialist, so you don't want to actually stand by them.
Just utterly ridiculous. The only reason you even pretend to be an anarchist is because you think the aesthetics are cool.
That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict.
Great! That's what I have been doing this entire conversation! The question is, if you're "trying to make people uninterested in conflict," why are you justifying the military that costs more than the next nine militaries put together? Why are you talking about how necessary and important it is to have soldiers go all over the world looking for fights? Why are you scaremongering about a tiny hermit country and acting like is super important that we use the military to stop it?
What a load of horseshit. That's a blatant contradiction, it's blatant hypocrisy.
Genuinely, I would need a degree in psychology to even begin to make sense of the bizarre mental gymnastics you're using to try to hold both of those ideas simultaneously and pretend they aren't completely contradictory.