Hmmm. That's a toughie. Refuting an illogical position, by using logic.
Oh well, here goes nothing : give me just one example of where Afghani women have operated as 'partisans' in this conflict, Cacique. Cause, y'know : it's kind of hard to run around in the mountains with an AK when you're wearing a burqa.
Just for starters.
However, it is irrelevant. It is not an issue in my argument. I argued that the civilian sector (including women) of an enemy population provides logistical support to the combatants. That is an irrefutable fact, an army or any fighting force cannot exist in a vacuum, it requires a support structure.
The objective in any conflict is victory and the destruction of an adversary's capacity to wage war and oppose your forces. To that end modern warfare requires the destruction of the logistical base of an enemy. That invariably means disabling the civilian capacity to give that logistical support. That in turn requires the imposition of casualties and destruction of selective civilian targets that provide that support.
The only morality in war is to win. To maximize casualties on the enemy population and minimize casualties of your own. The only rule is victory by any means necessary. That is the logic of war.
You may wish to be emotional about this matter and bring out the Judeo Christian weakness of compassion for an adversary,that is your privilidge and prerogative. I have no such scruples being an atheist.
I do not base my position on emotion based positions but simply on the practical elements involved in a war.
It is you who are illogical since you base your arguments on emotion and compassion, something that has no place in war. Magnanimity may occur once an enemy is vanquished, defeated or destroyed but it has no place while a struggle is effect.