[NewAmsterdam]

I think my point about the bombing is that it doesn't matter whether it is classified as strategic, tactical, carpet or precision: the population on the receiving end will classify it simply as the bombing of their country, however much they may detest their ruler(s). That is a fact that any country attacking another country - regardless of the just or unjust cause of the attacks - will have to consider. Hitler made the mistake, just as the British did later, and - in my opinion - the US and NATO did in Yugoslavia. This, in turn, makes it far more difficult to undermine the cohesion of the enemy; instead of weakening the enemy it might actually lead to its consolidation.

[dirtboy]

This, in turn, makes it far more difficult to undermine the cohesion of the enemy; instead of weakening the enemy it might actually lead to its consolidation.

However, bombing enemy positions prior to attack is an essential part of warfare - so is this strategic or tactical? You left out that we bombed the crap out of Iraq and that led directly to the weakness of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard during Desert Storm. As long as the bombing is not a means unto itself, IMO it can be effective.