Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
Hi Eden,



It strikes me that you are confusing the event - "war" - with the players . I was trying to define types of "war" (events) rather than types of players.

Marc
Actually, I think we were saying the same thing. A 'conventional' army - such as the US Army - can fight a conventional war, or it can take the part of an insurgent, or it can employ terror. The Viet Cong could fight a conventional war; the NVA could act as an insurgent. Thus, while certain armies are better suited to certain types of war, you cannot define a 'type' of war by, as you say, who the players are.

Instead, you must examine the targets selected by the opposing force. As you slide down the spectrum from conventional war to whatever we call the other end, the opposing force expends progressively less energy on attacking the enemy's military shield and progressively more on trying to influence/kill/terrorize/rob the society itself. Thus, tactics do not define the 'type' of war - rather the 'type' of war dictates what tactics are likely to be effective.

The implications of this is that the weaker force is able to dictate what 'type' of war will be fought - with the very important caveat that at lower intensities it becomes progressively more difficult to defend one's culture, infrastructure, material wealth, national territory, or way of life.