oppose_obama wrote:I am talking about pure military value. "scaring" your opponent is nice and dandy but negligible military value, when you are losing.
Agreed, "terrorism" is about terror after all, and best works when you have a touchy public opinion as in a modern liberal democracy, so it usually targets civilians. Then the perpetrators eagerly await the news and 24/7 channels to play their part, a convenient division of labour because most of the terrorizing work is done through the mediatic coverage.
The 9/11 is a case study, more photogenic and spectacular than anything imagined by Hollywood. But at the end of the day, can it be compared to a blitz, mass artillery shellings, tanks pouring into the streets? Certainly not. Terrorism can't win against any determined conventional army, it can only defeat public opinions.
The Syrian Arab Army doesn't have a "zero-dead" doctrine for its forces, or doesn't give a flying fuck about international condemnations. Cluster bombs? I remember unexploded specimens that landed on Serbia and that were shown on French TV. Given that the US (and Israel) refused to prohibit them, it's very likely that they would be used in any intervention on Syria.
But who cares about cluster munitions or not when you have beheadings and human bombs around?