Someone associates IR theoretical scholarship with Thomas Friedman, the author of the "Gee wiz, you guys, the internet is amazing!" theory.

Let's just forget for a moment the typical clarity hindering metaphor from Thomas Friedman.

I feel life is too short to read Thomas Friedman, but presuming that Mead has represented him correctly then his basic theory is that countries with large middle classes do not go to war with each other... Well, World War II comes to mind.

To be fair, there's an element of truth here, namely that happy and prosperous don't typically fight wars with each other. But I think this fits better in the category of truism than insight.

I REALLY wonder if they'd take the theory at all given that it's franchise-based. But, having said that: Challenge Accepted

I'll give it a try just to get a chuckle out of the reviewing panel

The fact that this theory even exists is sad.

War is just the collapse of society. It follows the same collapse distribution as forests, sandpiles, earthquakes, financial markets and more. Attacks within wars also follow this distribution - the power law distribution.

Basically this means that the longer you go without war then the bigger it will be when it comes. And it will always come.

To reiterate the point made in the post -- an IR scholar did not come up with this "silly theory." It was a NYT columnist. Mead wrote as if it was a scholarly theory. The point of this post was to disabuse him of this notion.

The comment above by Mattw0069 comparing wars to forests, sandpiles etc. makes no sense. Wars are not natural phenomena like sandpiles that eventually must collapse if they reach a certain size. The comparison is entirely unpersuasive and I doubt there is much convincing evidence, if any, that "the longer you go without war the bigger it will be when it comes." As for "it will always come" -- this is simply a profession of belief. It makes as much sense to say war "will always come" as it does to say "war will entirely cease to exist in 3 years." I happen to think that so-called hegemonic wars -- i.e. major wars directly pitting great powers against each other -- probably have effectively ceased to exist (i.e. there will never be another WW2-type conflict), but even this is not something I would assert in the confident tone that Mattw0069 uses when he says that war "will always come".

Got his id wrong: Mattw0699

I have to confess that of the two, India has the more prosperous and HAPPY middle class, mainly because India is not a virtual military encampment surrounded by mosques full of Afghan refugees and other religious refugees from nutty Arab countries wanting to die in a Jihad. Pakistan has more AK-47s per capita than any other country its size.

I read Friedman for satirical enjoyment, watching a buffoon who thinks he's another DeToqueville or Toynbee when he accentuates the obvious is always thrillingly hilarious.

Mead on the other hand is one of the most serious students of American foreign policy this side of the Atlantic, and I read him assiduously. Worth taking notes on, when he is particularly on point.

Several researchers have observed that many of the possible exceptions to the democratic peace have occurred when at least one of the involved democracies was very young. Many of them have therefore added a qualifier, typically stating that the peacefulness apply to democracies older than three years (Doyle 1983), (Russett 1993), (Rummel 1997), (Weart 1998). rachel starr (1997) argues that this is enough time for "democratic procedures to be accepted, and democratic culture to settle in." Additionally, this may allow for other states to actually come to the recognition of the state as a democrac Mansfield and Snyder (2002, 2005), while agreeing that there have been no wars between mature liberal democracies, state that countries in transition to democracy are especially likely to be involved in wars. They find that democratizing countries are even more warlike than stable democracies, stable autocracies or even countries in transition towards autocracy. So, they suggest caution in eliminating these wars from the analysis, because this might hide a negative aspect of the process of democratization. A reanalysis of the earlier study's statistical results (Braumoeller 2004) emphasizes that the above relationship between democratization and war can only be said to hold for those democratizing countries where the executive lacks sufficient power, independence, and institutional strength. A review (Ray 2003) cites several other studies finding that the increase in the risk of war in democratizing countries happens only if many or most of the surrounding nations are undemocratic. If wars between young democracies are included in the analysis, several studies and reviews still find enough evidence supporting the stronger claim that all democracies, whether young or established, go into war with one another less frequently (Ray 1998), (Ray 2003), (Hegre 2004), while some do not (Schwartz & Skinner 2002).

The terrorists have been at it for years; through presidents - time and space - it is about a hunger and thirst for power, fueled by hatred, brainwashing, and a deteriorating environment. Being a "terrorist" is a career choice. There will always be a target for the terrorist; it isn't just America, they have a lot of people in their sights. Foreign policy changes when our elected officials change. Funny how the more western-leaning countries in the Middle-East have asked us to please come there - and protect them from those nasty old terrorists. Hmmm............ RIO .

Wars are not natural phenomena like sandpiles that eventually must collapse if they reach a certain size. The comparison is entirely unpersuasive and I doubt there is much convincing evidence, if any, that "the longer you go without war the bigger it will be when it comes." As for "it will always come" -- this is simply a profession of belief.The American State Department was neutered by the Nixon white house, and while taking its ques from a culture of Cya in National Government, has never recovered.Diplomats, real Diplomats that can negotiate with certainty that the best stavkove kancelarie interests of the country is being served in the long term, not in the short term patchwork that looks or sounds good on the news, put forth by pols who's only true concern is reelection; can not thrive in this state department.they suggest caution in eliminating these wars from the analysis, because this might hide a negative aspect of the process of democratization. A reanalysis of the earlier study's statistical results emphasizes that the above relationship between democratization and war can only be said to hold for those sázkové kancelá?e democratizing countries where the executive lacks sufficient power, independence, and institutional strength. A review cites several other studies finding that the increase in the risk of war in democratizing countries happens only if many or most of the surrounding nations are undemocratic.