2 ms·
> that refuse to surrender The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated. > how exactly By organizing boring meetings with negociators a
by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
> that refuse to surrender
The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated.
> how exactly
By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them.
And from a guerrila warfare point of view, I disagree that they "clearly lost the war".
- jameshilliard 1y ago> The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated. It actually doesn't have to be negotiated, one side can simply make a demand for surrender with their terms and then apply military pressure until capitulation. This is largely what happened with Germany/Japan in WW2. > By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them. If it's clear the current negotiators/leaders will never surrender then there is arguably no benefit in keeping those particular negotiators/leaders alive. Once an organizations leadership tree is wiped out a few levels deep there's a decent chance you will get negotiators/leaders that will eventually capitulate to the demands(i.e. like what happened with Hezbollah).