[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.

[NewAmsterdam]

True, Iraq proves the opposite scenario from what I described. Yet, that was a 'conventional war' - if you wish - where you faced a 'conventional army', and fought for a clear-cut, territorial objective. Our exchange of ideas started with my idea that it could have been better to undermine the cohesion of the Taleban by bribery etc. Defections from their ranks were more likely then, then they are now, simply because the population and potential defectors are more likely to unite against the enemy who is bombing them. And the nature of the bombing is of very little significance to the way the Afghanis will perceive it, I think. So if the objective of this war is now to topple the Taleban, it will have to include a territorial element. To follow your example: the current bobmbing can only be meaningful and succesful in military terms if it is a prelude to a further campaign which has to include a territorial aim. It seems to me that that means that the war is evolving into something that was not initially intended. I think you would agree that Yugoslavia was not defeated militarily, but by diplomacy.