No offense,
no offense taken.
but your comprehension of strategy is...er...lacking.
Obviously. After all, I'm just the one who encourages contradiction of the adage that you have to take up the fight by pointing to something that obviously doesn't work, but lingers between the lines. I'm with you on the strength of arms. To take this to mean only to defeat with equal strength of arms, precisely what is taken to mean victory in this context, can also be taken to mean the opposite.
Not playing by the rules, if you can do that, go ahead. If asymmetric warfare works without collateral damage and the war is won, I would be in awe. After all, the Germans have lost the big war, even though they had victory in the small ones. If you can't find the guerrillas, you can of course bomb the whole area, then you will most likely catch them. But you risk to lose the support of the locals who may have given you a hiding place and a warm meal.
Not playing by the rules, if you can do that, go ahead
Have you read 'the rules for radicals', (saul alinsky)
I'd highly recommend it (free pdf online)
If asymmetric warfare works without collateral damage and the war is won, I would be in awe.
You never tie your own arm behind your back before getting into the boxing ring - that's stoopid..lol
note: I don't know of a single historical conflict - asymmetrical or otherwise, without collateral damage. It's the nature of war.
In terms of this current disagreement, I'd count the cutting off of my granddaughters education as collateral damage (part of my rewards were allocated towards that purpose)
(How I chose to get around the problem caused, is neither here not there).
If you can't find the guerrillas, you can of course bomb the whole area, then you will most likely catch them.
Incorrect - you'd be unlikely to catch them.
....But you risk to lose the support of the locals who may have given you a hiding place and a warm meal.
...too much aggression by the tyrants always results in the local populations finding resolve to counter them and aid the rebels .
It only takes a tiny % to make this relevant...(i.e less than 1% of a population)
No, I haven't, thanks, maybe I'll look into it.
Good, I was waiting for this answer.
It will be interesting to see what your grand daughter will have to say to it when she is an adult.
Provide me with a good story, please. One of which it is said to be true.
Then, we are one a good way, I suppose.
Why on earth would she even get to know about it?
(her job is an her education, mine is providing the resources for it - I can't imagine why I'd ever explain any of this to her).
Vietnam and the carpet bombings/agent orange deforestation.
Intended to inflict causalities and demoralize - but only added resolve to the viet-cong army and the villagers who helped to keep them supplied.
(The went underground, literally).
I was also thinking of my son (and other kids I know). I am not telling him anything about my struggles or losses, either. Nevertheless he will get glimpses here and there, through comments from family influencing people who visit or talk to each other, not expecting a child to listen or understand what's going on. Through phone calls or curses made etc. etc.
I talked to the adults after I was perceived as mature enough to ask them about their experiences. Decades after the nest protection for me was long over.