What are some of the same old issues?

Let's look at Libya.  As of today September 29th 2016, there is a concern of citizens and foreigners being trapped amid violence in the Benghazi area and as a result they are cut off from food supply.  The scene is persons severely deficient in food intake remindful of Somalia hunger 35 years ago, hunger victims in Bosnia in the early 1990s.
Back in 2011, there were starvation victims in the northern area of Libya near Tunisia.
Generally fighting is fierce off and on in Sirte, recently, past few months. 
Feelings of intervention in conflicts on Libya soil by other nations with wealth sometimes seems to straddle the middleground of abandon them especially if there is nothing in it for us attitude, like sub-Saharan regions, and rush to keep oil related strongholds at maximum running par.  Those times when Libya has not gotten much intervention often spell out sullen woes for those less fortunate, the referent starvation, and squalid conditions.

In Iran, the questions of nuclear capability keep coming up, such as within the last month, just like it has it seems every few months for the last however many decades.

In Egypt, within the past 2 days at the lengthiest, a car bomb exploded in Cairo.  This is not the first time, and as those that keep up with news in Egypt over the past 20 years know, car bombs detonating in Cairo have appeared in news stories a proportional number of times that it is an occurrence known to surface in the region every so often.

In northern Africa, wherein are sub-groups engaging in political tension and ramifying turmoil, who to side with and when to intervene has been a tough decision in many cases for nations outside with the capacity to help.  At what point is it their business and allow them to solve their problems, then the sliding over to, too much has occurred and if intervention does not occur, then other nations [the scenario of how they could be perceived] have been lax in stepping up and being leaders with a sense of responsibility.

Similar questions come up with respect to Afghanistan; including when to Intervene where there are groups within in tensions with each other.  Recently there was another event involving use of violence that affected a set of Afghani troops of some classification, reference an attack in Kunduz about three days ago. 
Another area of concern is when U.S. troops or another nation do attempt to intervene, and perform a strike on an intended target, sometimes civilians not intended become victim; it is a painful situation to all parties involved, and the agonizing puzzle that needs to be solved as to how to successfully thwart terrorist cells and keep clear of innocent civilians at the same time.

In Iraq, U.S. troops have gotten involved with region on a popular level since he Iraq-Kuwait border dispute which seems like it is still a new era, an era of fighting amongst Arabs and in nations heavily populated by Muslim, on a war international in severity level,  now it has been over a quarter of a century.  Today, September 2016, the more recent rationale for sending troops to Iraq is to combat ISIS/ISIL/IS.  There keeps appearing a reason to be in Iraq, which naturally has those that want to take care of our, U.S. troops, ask voiced or not, are they somehow being baited by a intensely in-depth thought-out plan by a perpetrator of some sort lurking in the region of Iraq to bait and lure our soldiers?

This is not a historical outline of all the accounts of starvation in Libya, tensions in Egypt that turned deadly outside offices in Egypt, and so on, it is to daub at the totality of what looks like a cycle of recurring events.  This is what is meant by resiliency; the events keep coming back to an extent, at least some of them as of now.  Unfortunately, the events often result in the uglier side of humankind developments, the starvation from being boxed in for instance, which explains the word usage of resiliency a negative.