The Limits of Force

In thinking about Afghanistan for my last post, I began to wonder about the history of large land invasions since World War II. My first thought was: have any been successful? Nothing spung to mind, so I decided to explore the subject with an eye towards determining whether occupation is an effective strategy given universal nationalism and the proven effectiveness of asymmetrical warfare.

I would like preface this by saying that I am not interested in universal pacificism or the morality of war. While the nuclear peace theory has proven to be effective, I think that American super-abundance of conventional military strength has led to perhaps the most peaceful time in world history. To what degree America must maintain its military hegemony is debatable, but the benefits of the strength itself is not. Rather, I wonder if there is any merit to the perma-hawk attitude of Bill Kristol in the arena of furthering American interests. Did the first President Bush find the proper balance between strength and prudance, or is long term foreign projection of power beneficial to the U.S.?