[attiladhun2]

Asymmetrical warfare is nonlinear, so the definition of "winning" is going to be more of a heuristic than an equation. The old model was Winning=Defeat of Enemy. The new model does not emphasize winning, but favorable results. If the conflict can be kept to low levels of intensity, that is also a favorable result. An unfavorable circumstance would be a world dividing up again into blocs of hostile alliances. That increases the likelihood of another world war involving nukes. In this new paradigm military strategy and battle tactics are the smallest part of undertanding the whole picture. The new strategy must be holistic. G-2, selective assassination, bribery, blackmail, disinformation, propaganda, ad hoc alliances, stings, economic warfare, and a host of other things are as important as marshalling armies and navies. Asymmetrical warfare is a gray world where the good guys are sometimes unrecognizable from the bad guys. It will take PHDs with the skills of gangsters.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Asymmetrical warfare is a gray world where the good guys are sometimes unrecognizable from the bad guys. It will take PHDs with the skills of gangsters.<<

That says it well.

Your definition of war does fit what we are dealing with today.

I think many people do not realize that all the countries are forming into groups, some to help fight a war and others to do the supplying of weapons and money.

But I am not a good game player, a little too earthy and old fashioned for the new styles of war.

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

Asymmetrical warfare is a gray world where the good guys are sometimes unrecognizable from the bad guys. It will take PHDs with the skills of gangsters.

---

This is an awesome summary of war today that is going to go on for a very very long time.

We could use some gangsters that think they have PHDs to. LOL