rudatron posted:

So here's what I've been thinking of recently:

All 3 major players in this upcoming regional conflict, have strategies that are predicated on circumventing 'traditional' state-based diplomacy, to achieve foreign policy goals, through either adopting themselves, or supporting other groups, that have some blend of 'asymmetric' style warfare.

But the asymmetric style warfare is not a general counter-punch to overcoming military disadvantages - it does not make a weak army beat a stronger army, all other things being equal. What it is, is a strategy predicated on your opponent either choosing or being forced to adopt the traditional rules-of-war, while you are not. All you're doing, is leveraging that differential, to both protect yourself and weaken your opponent.

But what happens when both (or in this case, all 3 sides), have adopted and are comfortable with 'asymmetric' warfare? What happens when everyone is trying to fight the asymmetric battle, and no one is actually the guy following the rules?

Like take that tweet: 65 villagers butchered because they got US aid. The people who did that thought they were justified. And hey, it worked right? They wanted to send a message, and well: message sent.

Now imagine a regional conflict, where both sides have that mindset. What do you think, is gonna happen?