Patience and Economic Progress is a better strategy and solution than War, Confrontation and Fighting

Sun Tzu is the classic book on military strategy.

He indicated that it is best to win before the battle.

Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign

So you have to be prepared but the main field of action now is economic and that can be cooperative.
There are more times when it is better not to fight.

Having a well run country with a strong and growing economy is a better strategy than going to wars to try to take territory from others. Wars and excessive reliance on fighting and preparing to fight can often be ineffective and inefficient. Solutions and options should be analyzed in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Some defense is needed and sometimes conflict can be effective, efficient and necessary. However, this needs to be analyzed more precisely and pragmatically.

This is the case of Germany where they had two failed wars of conquest in WW1 and WW2. Yet with the formation of the EU with France, Germany obtains the benefits of Europe wide trade and political influence without the cost and resistance that come with war.

China did not get back to success until they turned to policies of economic progress.

Canada like the US and Australia gains people from other nations by attracting them to immigrate. This can allow for a selective process where the bias is towards wealthier and more educated immigrants and those without criminal records. When a territory is conquered you get all of the conquered people even if they are poor, resistant, uneducated or criminal.

The Soviet Union (Russia) overspent on defense which contributed to their failure and collapse.

The US is now overspending on defense and getting involved in costly avoidable conflicts.

The drug war was an ineffective and inefficient confrontational policy. The pragmatic policy is one of decriminalization and eliminating economic incentives for the drug trade while using public health methods to treat the demand side.

Any large scale conflict between the major powers (US, Russia, China, etc…) would be stupid and the nuclear weapons means that there would not be an economic benefit and prevent any clean and fast defeat for any side. The weapon systems that are geared towards a WW2 style conflict repeat need to be greatly de-emphasized. Especially if Iraq style conflicts are also avoided in favor of Libya style interventions. A lot of the middle east interventions have proven to be ineffective or not worthwhile. I think there should be a policy of managing and limiting the reach of problems in the regions and towards long term and sustainable influence of developments. There do not need to be a consistent maintenance and cultivation of relationships and steering the region towards better governance over the long term. In the meantime, make the deals and influence with cost efficiency and long term effectiveness and consideration of a wider range of tools and options.

Economic strength and dynamism provide a far stronger basis for national military strength and influence.

If Iran had per capita income at the level of the USA, they would be far more formidible in obtaining their objectives. This analysis may not be the case for each faction within Iran. In China, the general consensus is that China should be economically strong and individuals and groups can profit more (ie more billionaires when there is a bigger economy to skim.)

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks