A...no. That’s not what “asymmetrical warfare” means. Words matter. Ideas matter too. Somethings, too, are self-evident. No matter how much force we bring to bear a war between the US led coalition and ISIS would remain asymmetrical by definition. If you understand what the term “asymmetrical” means, you’ll realize I’m correct in what I posted. I don’t get the impression you’re the type of person who does research about things you know little of before you post, though, nor or you likely to say “Yup, I was wrong.”
“A...no. That’s not what “asymmetrical warfare” means.”
Asymmetrical warfare means “warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, as terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.”
That is the situation we have, but we only have that situation because we haven’t used our stronger military resources to end the war—as I said.
“No matter how much force we bring to bear a war between the US led coalition and ISIS would remain asymmetrical by definition.”
Only until they lose, and are eradicated from the face of the earth.
“If you understand what the term “asymmetrical” means, you’ll realize I’m correct in what I posted.”
I understand what the term means, and I understand that you seized on a misinterpretation of what I said to try and bully me.
“I don’t get the impression you’re the type of person who does research about things you know little of before you post, though, nor or you likely to say “Yup, I was wrong.”
Your impressions are on you, not me.