I think this analysis is maybe not right. The systems that endure are the systems that survive, so its less relevant in the long term how effective a system is at waging agrresive wars. Its how good it is at fighting defensive ones is the key.
The counter insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not existential for the continued survival of the USA. So they were not going to create much (or any) Darwinian pressure to select for or against societies like the USA. (Baring the, potentially important possibility of the USA leaving societies in its own image in these places).
I think you have me on the wrong side. If the existential struggle for a state always takes the form of insurgency on it’s home territory, or a diplomatic settlement, then the primary factors that matter for state survival are legitimacy and ability to transfer power. Democracies are great at that. Basically, the argument for the reasons that you don’t see democracies in civil wars as often also make them very strong at winning them in home territory, which makes their displacement a remote possibility. Basically, we should not see the end to popular (that is supported by the populace) systems of government ever, because protests can always force you to fight an occupation or lose control of the territory, and the main factor for winning those struggles is always the popular will.
I think this analysis is maybe not right. The systems that endure are the systems that survive, so its less relevant in the long term how effective a system is at waging agrresive wars. Its how good it is at fighting defensive ones is the key.
The counter insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not existential for the continued survival of the USA. So they were not going to create much (or any) Darwinian pressure to select for or against societies like the USA. (Baring the, potentially important possibility of the USA leaving societies in its own image in these places).
I think you have me on the wrong side. If the existential struggle for a state always takes the form of insurgency on it’s home territory, or a diplomatic settlement, then the primary factors that matter for state survival are legitimacy and ability to transfer power. Democracies are great at that. Basically, the argument for the reasons that you don’t see democracies in civil wars as often also make them very strong at winning them in home territory, which makes their displacement a remote possibility. Basically, we should not see the end to popular (that is supported by the populace) systems of government ever, because protests can always force you to fight an occupation or lose control of the territory, and the main factor for winning those struggles is always the popular will.