I believe the issue is not the invasion itself but what they did/didn't do after they "won".
It's indeed sad to see no good side/party. Just a mess that brought a lot of misery.
Unless an explicit claim to hegemony is involved, when a party isn't part of the country involved, we normally don't say "civil" but instead "proxy" warfare.
As CIA and the Pentagon support different sides in Syria, does this imply they're likely running offensive ops against each other? Do black (psywar) black (hat) hackers have any sort of IFF to prevent blue-on-blue?
(for a different blue-on-blue scenario: what might the cyber equivalent of leaving a grenade pin on an officer's pillow be?)
Comments
I believe the issue is not the invasion itself but what they did/didn't do after they "won". It's indeed sad to see no good side/party. Just a mess that brought a lot of misery.
Let's agree that it's the result of short term thinking
I hope at least that's the case and it was not just a totally selfish/reckless/"evil" act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
I'd say it was worth the cost. The US used to suck in civil warefare. But after the Syria civil war, they clearly have the upper hand vs. Russia.
Unless an explicit claim to hegemony is involved, when a party isn't part of the country involved, we normally don't say "civil" but instead "proxy" warfare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars
Yea, Syria's a much better place now that those Russians have left.
theyre still there
That was the joke.
As CIA and the Pentagon support different sides in Syria, does this imply they're likely running offensive ops against each other? Do black (psywar) black (hat) hackers have any sort of IFF to prevent blue-on-blue?
(for a different blue-on-blue scenario: what might the cyber equivalent of leaving a grenade pin on an officer's pillow be?)