Situation in the world becomes more and more strained. Against economic crisis mankind definitely enters a zone of the highest political turbulence. Nobody can guarantee absence of wars or conflicts which can come to the end with war.
Analysis of modern confrontations shows that their important feature is that there's practically no possibility of political fastening of military successes. Neither in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Libya winners can guarantee that "established by way of bayonets" power can hold on without them for long. Therefore the winners should prolong their military presence that is rather expensive.
In fact if there's no political victory, war can last eternally.
Besides, mere possibility of a military victory in the mentioned conflicts causes doubts.
Whether the USA beat Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq? If yes, why we can still hear the sounds of fights and explosions? Whether forces of the NATO beat Kaddafi followers in Libya? Answers to these questions can be different - depending on ideology and political position of the one who is asked. That is, it is possible to say, there's no answers for now.
War in the modern world became so dissymetric that two parties can conduct simultaneously what is called "operations" without adjoining in any way with each other. While the fighter pilot bombs certain bases of terrorists, the suicide bomber can enter the crowd of tourists or passenger bus.
Direct military collision has essentially changed in the modern world as well.
The fighting spirit of the fighters-Islamites in essential degree compensates weakness of arms, absence of regular armed forces, absence of the modern-organized society and own defensive industry.
In XX century the best armed army had unconditional domination over worse armed opponent.
Today quality of the human capital grows in price again.
While the USA are occupied with naturalizing of gays into the army, thousand men in the countries of the Islamic world are ready to become shahids having become a victim.
Events in Libya show that war - is nevertheless matter of people, not cars, even if these are perfect cars.
In Libya the NATO block on which 70% of world military expenses are spent fails to "end up" with groups of the dictator of the small country. It's already not the first "call", it's already siren of alarm tearing bared nerves to pieces. Even today, after official "victory" prices for oil grow worldwide, while dollar and euro become cheaper: the West economy doesn't trust in victorious reports of own politicians.
When did qualities of the human capital become more important than weapon and technics?
Last twenty-thirty years "first calls" changing parity in a chain weapon-man ring continuous rumble worldwide.
So, in 2006 Israel practically lost war to irregular groups of movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. In few days attack of 30-thousand first class army was stopped (in 15-20 km from the border!) and Israel began to turn the troops out.
Even earlier very well technically equipped army having overwhelming advantage over the contender in arms, communication facilities and management lost wars to more motivated, sacrificial and persistent contender. It is enough to recollect wars in Korea or Vietnam. However then it was a question of opposition of two regular armies, two systems of the rear security, two military-industrial machines, two public systems with ideology of mobilization type.
Now powerful regular army struggles not with the army of the opponent but with home guard which does not have accurate social borders. That is - with concrete man or group of concrete people who do not have either modern weapon, or security, either social structurization, or sufficient information... That is with someone not capable to win and even formally not capable to resistance.
We often come across opinion of respectful military experts about victorious actions of the USA and the NATO in Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan: about realization of the strategy of network-centric wars, about ideological and psychological wars, about use of precision weapons and the weapon on new principles, etc.
Such reading only strengthens doubt in our ability to estimate correctly, adequately what "victory" in similar conflict means and who eventually gained victory over whom.
For example, situation in Libya. The NATO has been pottering in this conflict for long. Its delaying effects strongly interests of the NATO member states. Losses of the EU and the USA from a rise in prices for oil in almost hundred times have exceeded direct military expenses for operation in Libya and, most likely, exceed material damage brought to the destroyed by bombing Libya. While Kaddafi is still free.
Centuries ago Mongols and the Arabs who were at lower steps of public evolution gained victories over opponents who had more modern weapon, the best military organization and more better developed economically rear. They won and created world scale empires.
Probably, today the situation comes back to that starting point when qualities of the fighter were more important than the weapon which he possesses.
By the way, in the modern world those states of the world which show high human potential of the population and army, the unity of people and absence of fermentation in the society don't become object of aggression even if they are in the international isolation and are ranked as "a harm axis". Neither North Korea, nor Iran are objects of attack and obviously won't become. The problem of countries which undergo aggression consists in the fact that there is no unity in the society and elite isn't supported by the population. Here we can talk about Libya, Iraq and Serbia.