Well, howdy there internet people, it's Bow again. So today we are going to talk about the

conventional and unconventional. And we're going to do this because I got a question. The question itself is self-explanatory. The way it was

phrased, the answer is already there, but I think I know what the person was

actually trying to ask. So we're going to go over that because I think other people have the same question.

When I'm talking about the U.S. military, I will often say something along the lines of there is not a

conventional force on the planet that can go toe-to-to-toe with the U.S.

military and win.

That's not American exceptionalism.

That is statement of fact.

There is not a conventional force on the planet that can go toe to toe with the US military.

The person asked, why do I always specify conventional? I mean the obvious answer to that is because

unconventionally an unconventional force is much more capable of degrading U.S. capabilities in winning a conflict.

But I think that the person knows that.

I think what they're really asking is why is an unconventional

force more capable? And the answer is pretty simple. It's really, it kind of

boils down to two things.

The first is how technology has changed.

And I'm going to give some specific examples.

But it's important to remember that unconventional conflicts

forever, okay, they're hard to win to begin with.

But the one thing that the state actor had, that the unconventional force typically didn't was access to information, a real intelligence

network.

...