Wistful meanderings in to pop-sociology aside, terrorism is a component of general guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare itself is a valid and often very successful strategy to winning a conflict where there are vast resource and power projection differences between combatants. Two episodes in US history are pretty accurate portrayals of this - the American Revolution and the Vietnam War.
Terrorism's number one use is still simply a tactic of a regional conflict where one side is employing guerrilla strategies, exactly inline with Sun Tzu's teachings.
The more modern "common" use of the word is simply an extension of the conflict to the global scale; Jihadists and others are involved in an epic guerrilla war against the entire planet - they are looking to remake the world in their vision. It's rather simple and straightforward to see where terrorism fits in this respect.
The article is academic to the point of meaninglessness.
> Two episodes in US history are pretty accurate portrayals of this - the American Revolution and the Vietnam War.
I couldn't have asked for a better example of selection bias. Do you have any idea how many revolts or revolutions the English empire had to deal with over the centuries? And you pick one and claim this vindicates the method? And as for Vietnam, the Vietcong were largely destroyed after the Tet offensive - it wasn't the Vietcong who conquered South Vietnam, it was the regular troops.
I picked those examples because I figured most people are familiar enough with them. I'm in no way asserting that guerrilla warfare is a perfect method of fighting or that it somehow guarentees success. At best it's 60/40.
That being said, I'm not quite sure what you are arguing. If you are suggesting that the US was victorious in Vietnam you're missing the point. Winning the battle but not the war, as it were.
If you think Vietnam is too unique, feel free to substitute the boer war, the war in Angola, the soviets vs. the afghans, etc etc etc. It's not like there are a lack of examples.
> I'm in no way asserting that guerrilla warfare is a perfect method of fighting or that it somehow guarentees success. At best it's 60/40.
And to reiterate my point about selection bias, I think you are wildly optimistic about its success and that a proper sample of hundreds of conflicts - include the less known ones - will show a lower success rate.
> It's not like there are a lack of examples.
You've named like, 10. That's better than most people could and I applaud it, but it's still nowhere near an answer.
Listen, if you want to force me to conduct an exhaustive review of every conflict in human history, you better at least provide something other than your opinion as a counterpoint.
Wistful meanderings in to pop-sociology aside, terrorism is a component of general guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare itself is a valid and often very successful strategy to winning a conflict where there are vast resource and power projection differences between combatants. Two episodes in US history are pretty accurate portrayals of this - the American Revolution and the Vietnam War.
Terrorism's number one use is still simply a tactic of a regional conflict where one side is employing guerrilla strategies, exactly inline with Sun Tzu's teachings.
The more modern "common" use of the word is simply an extension of the conflict to the global scale; Jihadists and others are involved in an epic guerrilla war against the entire planet - they are looking to remake the world in their vision. It's rather simple and straightforward to see where terrorism fits in this respect.
The article is academic to the point of meaninglessness.