3 ms·
The first proposed solution would make much more sense if you actually had overwhelming force for an assault - however, if you've got a hundred or so fighters a
by PeterisP 4y ago
The first proposed solution would make much more sense if you actually had overwhelming force for an assault - however, if you've got a hundred or so fighters and the potential opposition is "between 200-250 strong" among 2000 civilians, then no matter what victory-enabling superiority you may have, winning a firefight like that won't minimize friendly casualties or "collateral damage", which were the stated goal of all the experts, so you fail at your goals even if you win the fight.
If you have the exact same scenario but for a smaller oasis with five times less population and militia (but you still having the full company), then the conclusions would be different.
- the_af 4y agoEven if you have overwhelming force there can still be casualties, especially if the local militia are slow to realize the fight is hopeless. Which can happen, especially if you take them by surprise. The locals will surely take casualties. With zero casualties for the occupying force, this may still be a negative result. Now you've made enemies of the locals, and the word will spread. Assuming your goal is not to become an oppressor you may have hurt your cause by going gung-ho into the village, even if tactically you succeeded.