Now now...when Rupert and Tarquin are sober they're actually quite bright! More importantly, they have decent estates for their fat old company commander to shoot upon - so cease your Light Division wibbling! (Not so different from a number of Riflemen I know, come to think...)
And I disagree! I think all your examples are have strategic effect - its a question of degree. The Vietnam pics most definately had a negative impact on the perception of the war, the opinion (right or otherwise) of the legitimacy of the US. And in all these things, Legitimacy, and the perception of it - is the most important strategic factor of all. US (IMHO) came unstuck in Vietnam because they were backing a loser - Govt of SVN couldn't/wouldn't provide for its people in an equitable way - VC notwithstanding (query Karzai and Kabul...oi vay...)
Collective intents? Political aims? Again all relative. What about that nutter who plugged Archduke Ferdinand and lit the fuse for WW1. Was he part of an organised collective that wanted World conflict? Or an aggreived Balkan who just wanted to lash out at the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I think enough Lindie Englands probably can lose the war for you. The local national populace get incensed and support the insurgent more. The home base loses faith and want out. The Allies have even more of an excuse to break out their inhalers and run for their immodium tablets. And the poor bloody infantry groan, wait for the incoming, and count down the days until the RIP, and subsequent PTSD.
I thinks are more complex (and yet more simple) than the old state on state 'big event' paradigm.
Bookmarks