http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389 Profiteering and warmongering aside, powerful nations tend to collectively think that they can beat the smaller powers into submission when need be, making armed conflict well worth the political trouble. A new <a href="http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/printer_070611_Sullivan.shtml">University of Georgia study</a> finds, however, that military incursions against apparently weaker nations aren't always tea and crackers and home by four. Indeed, since World War II, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ en-us Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:19:04 EST Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:30:07 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389#7     Interesting. Womack seems to be arguing a specific instance of a general trend- fact even- that Robert Anton Wilson was asserting at least as far back as the 70s*, namely that power unequal power relationships prevent the flow of good informa Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:30:07 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389#6 <i><br> Our victory against the Iraqi army was just that - crushing and absolute.</i><p> I disagree. At least based on my definition of what absolute means. The Iraqi army was certainly crushed, but large components simply fled the field of battle and reco Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:22:19 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389#5 Our victory against the Iraqi army was just that - crushing and absolute.  On the other hand, I don't think any occupying force has come up with an effective means of policing a belligerent populace short of extremely oppressive measures that just are Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:39:35 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389#4 There are two different phenomena that international relations & security scholars have dreamed up that can help explain this. One is Stephen Biddle's notion of the "modern system" of warfare. In brief, he argues that (excluding atomic weapons, which Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:03:12 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389#3 While you are correct that as a result of our Iraqi adventure, military spending has been topped up and a new cycle of technology (unarmed drones as an example) have been brought to the battlefield -- the actual impact of the military in terms of psycholog Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:42:02 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389#2 Doesn't our <i>perceived</i> failure embolden "mid-level" states like Iran, though? Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:54:33 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/13/144134/389#1 The problems with this analysis is that the stated goal of the incursion isn't always that important.  The most important goal for a super power is to regularly project its power and influence on a global scale.  The barbarians will quickly be at Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:27:47 EST string http://www.treesandthings.com/search/