Air war question

[hq21]

There are plenty of points to debate about the Allied bombing of Germany with regards to effectiveness, strategy, targets, et. al. But anyone not still thinking a fat dude in a red suit is gonna drop by one night in late December will understand the original thesis laid out in this thread is nothing more than a "Wal-Mart is why I'm poor" theory. I'm sure you can go to the DailyKos or any other some such and find it all with a slightly different package for each. Kinda like a 1982 Olds Toronado/Buick Riviera/Cadillac Eldorado.
But it was this that begs more of a response:

The factors that are key to winning military conflicts today are, IMO, (1) information and intel (and the technology that goes with these), (2) public relations, (3) a strong Gross Domestic Product, and (4) well defined goals to keep the PR campaign focused.

I am astonished at how both history buffs and "real" historians seem to think history is just some folk tale.
Or (1) has intel never been important before our lifetimes?
Perhaps (2) propaganda is something new?
(3) War has never been an expensive affair?
And (4) has also always been true but it's primary goal isn't for PR purposes so much as it is to actually WIN.

And the statement about the end of global conflicts has been uttered before. Of course, if you believe that history not only begins when you're born, but ends when you die, I'm sure you can believe in the end of global conflicts too. As his been the case so many times before some future (or quite likely current) generation will bear conflagration that which their predecessors said was "history".