Is the war in Iraq "winnable" for the US?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Territorial sovereignty is the basis of governmental power (whether autocratic, representative democracy, or some other form of government).

Quote

… then the countries with the largest landmass would be the most powerful. Instead, the countries with the most wealth are the most powerful (Japan is roughly the size of California, is the second wealthiest country, and gets the US to go to war in the middle east when it's oil supply in Kuwait is threatened).

You’re confusing the internal basis of sovereignty under the Westphalian system with the ability to project power internationally and political economics. War is an inter-state phenomenon.

But your simplified notional Japan scenario does illustrate validation of what started this dialogue – “St Carl” von Clausewitz’s principle On War that “War is merely a continuation of politics by other means.”

Historically military power has come from mass (mostly through ability to raise a large army) and natural resources. That is what is referred to as 1st generation warfare. While it's debated, the era of 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) is where we are currently situated, imo. COL TX Hammes, USMC (ret) concurs; LTC Antulio Echevarria, USA (PhD) dissents.

In the Cold War, military power came from precision, speed, stealth and tactical ISR. It’s debated as to what will be the source of military power in the 21st century. The DSB has made some suggestions.

Just to be explicit, military power is not the same as war. Having some military capababilities can deter war.

If you find Wikipedia useful (I'm more of a primary data addict), you may find interesting:

Westphalian Sovereignty

Power in International Relations

My favorite dead Prussian General (actually the only dead Prussian General I can name ), Carl von Clausewitz & Principles of War, which is sparse but worth noting how Clausewitz still influences profoundly US and UK military structure.

A contemporary critic of Clausewitz, Marin van Creveld.
(I found van Creveld's The Rise and Decline of the State quite accessible.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[likearock 2]

Quote

Here's how Wikipedia defines politics (note the complete lack of reference to land):

Quote

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions on who gets what. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.[citation needed]

Newsflash: The decisions on who gets what most definitely includes land when it comes to countries. So what if they don't mention it specifically? They don't mention anything specifically.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Increasing the geographical reach of national sovereignty and increasing available resources, including space, is political. So is retaliating against a third party that attempts to prevent trade between two parties.

So if your definition of politics includes economics, it must also include theoretical physics (I knew Einstein was a politco!), bumblebees (always hated the little yellow and black bastards) and chow mein. In other words, everything is political?

I guess I could stretch everything in the known universe to be part of engineering - it would greatly improve my job prospects ...

Personally, I think politics and economics can overlap, but economics is the driving force, whereas politics is the excuse. I guess I already said that a few times.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So if your definition of politics includes economics, it must also include theoretical physics (I knew Einstein was a politco!), bumblebees (always hated the little yellow and black bastards) and chow mein. In other words, everything is political?

You're making less and less sense with each post in this thread.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!