> That's a huge simplification. Blowing stuff up in a strategic way can certainly help win a war.

And losing public support for an effort via an embarassing disaster can just as certainly lose it, which was my point.

Yes yes yes, blow stuff up. Take territory, shoot people, yada yada. At some point that has to happen for a "war" to be a "war". But at the end of the day the winner is essentially always predetermined by economics and politics. Making deployment decisions in the absence of those considerations is generally how one loses wars.