Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
Not referencing this particular scenario, but strong powers in general have a tendency to be beaten or worn down by weak forces in asymmetric warfare, at least since the 20th century or so. It's the nature of the fight. The moment Hamas starts being armed like a conventional military force and begins to fight a conventional war is the moment they get obliterated by the IDF.
|
Yup when you have a military with a set rules of engagement, a set target list and set objectives versus a force with no rules of engagement who's sole ambition is to bleed you and kill as many of you as possible in the worst way possible no matter what the cost, then you have a distinct advantage.
It was a theory originally created by General Giap in Vietnam who reached the conclusion that if you killed enough of the French they eventually wouldn't send anymore, then fought the same kind of war against the Americans. It was later perfected in Vietnam.
If there is a war on the ground it will be interesting to see if Israel adapted to their issues in Lebanon.
The smartest room is to find a way to drive your enemy backwards, put the skeer to them and deny them places to hide.
You can do that in one of two ways, one is you seize territory relocate civilians and raze any hiding places, and fight a war of extermination with your enemy.
The second way is to destroy their logistics, surround and cut off your enemy nation, refuse to engage and starve everyone til they submit.
Neither in this case can really be used because of the propaganda war.