Very rarely have so many policymakers and military leaders, in so many countries, taken such notice of events in Sri Lanka. For while the Americans, Russians, Turks, Israelis, and numerous African and other Asian governments, struggle with 'asymmetrical warfare' actors - the insurgents and terrorists we hear so much about - the Sri Lankans seem to have achieved something most experts considered impossible.
Despite decades of brutal conflict, they have wiped out their adversaries with one decisive military campaign.
Sri Lanka's spectacular victory has taken the world by surprise - and what is causing such head-scratching is that the success of their military campaign flies in the face of conventional military, strategic and political thinking. The post-'Bush doctrine' consensus tells commanders and policymakers that terror cannot be defeated by military action alone, but by an emphasis on social and economic policies, with military action only resorted to when absolutely necessary.
Overuse military power, it is argued - as events in Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan and Gaza seem to be telling us - and you in fact embolden, not weaken, the terrorists, as the carnage and 'collateral damage' (civilian casualties) that your campaign causes recruits the 'common man' to the ranks of the 'bad guys'.
Yet Sri Lanka has seemingly totally eliminated its previously potent enemy with an old-fashioned military onslaught.
Some have thus been quick to claim that the Sri Lankan case study proves aggressive military tactics do bear fruit, and should be reconsidered.