I'm suggesting that there is no difference in the dictionary sense. I believe the burden is on you to clearly articulate the distinction that you are attempting

I'm suggesting that there is no difference in the dictionary sense. I believe the burden is on you to clearly articulate the distinction that you are attempting to draw between the two. To put it differently, I suspect that when you say "government" your intent is to refer to something else. Hence my question. > the nonstate or nonpeer force has no chance whatsoever through conventional tactics, which are far more reliable and thus invariably used for practical reasons when practicable. I'd have to disagree. It refers broadly to tactics that don't favor size (ie expendable manpower, cash, physical resources, etc) to the same degree as conventional ones. Questions of reliability, cost, speed, user safety, and all sorts of other considerations apply in equal measure to any tactic that any party of any size might consider employing and tend to vary wildly depending on the context. > Americans always get this wrong because of Vietnam. The NVA and the VC were not the same force, dammit! ... NVA? Was the US pushed out by a non-peer adversary or not? Were any favorable alternatives available? Isn't that all that matters at the end of the day? > thus makes my point for me Unfortunately I remain in the dark.