GS,
Its worth talking about - I'm not sure if the comment was raised off my post, but it should be brought up:

I think I just read that irregular warfare will morph into conventional warfare?
I think its a question of the political objective of the various combatants, what means they have access to over time, and how conditions change. So I'd agree with "can" or "may", but I'd not commit to "will", that leads to deterministic thinking and can get you into trouble when making decisions e.g. you look for what you think you should see vs. evaluating what you do see.

Time is a funny thing, and different cultures have different takes on it. For some 400 yrs ago is like last week, for others yesterday is like last week. Some see a struggle as lasting generations and anticipate a time when things will return to as they believe it once was and by Law, should be. I think AQ senior leadership (and the truly committed) share a sort of quasi belief that although they themselves would like to preside over a greater caliphate, they can content themselves with moving that goal forward a yard at a time if need be - the commitment to struggle is a large part of how they define themselves, and thy believe that as long as they do so, they will eventually prevail as God has promised. T

Having said that, I think we must consider that there is both an IW component to their strategy and the desire to obtain regular means by which to preserve their eventual gains and move into legitimacy - no matter if that be infesting a destabilized state and then rebuilding from the inside out, or if that means co-opting or allying themselves with some govt. that shares their interpretation and goals. For my part I think AQ (and like organizations) must retain an IW capability as long as it benefits them to do so. This could mean retaining an advantage against its enemies, or to shape conditions for future military actions.

Best, Rob