You are suggesting that the "Rules of War" are as important as numerical, tactical, or technological superiority.

If an aspect of our military action is superior, then it will result in greater losses on the enemy's side, and greater gains by our side. Are our "Rules of War" superior to theirs?

Some rules that we have that they don't, include:

1. Don't kill civilians.
2. Don't torture prisoners of war.
3. Don't use weapons of mass destruction.
4. Maintain a democratic system.

Much as we like these things, are they appropriate while waging armed conflict with an enemy that couldn't care less? Suppose for example we were fighting aliens from another planet, or another subspecies of hominid. This might seem ridiculous, but they might not understand us, or they don't have the same conscience as we do, or might not be capable of reasoning like us in quite the same way. They may value different things, or not fear the same things.

Tit-for-tat conflicts are an obvious outcome, and in turn, escalation, and inevitably genocide, truce, surrender, or retreat.

In Darwinian philosopy, species, or varieties of a species, will produce more offspring than can survive. If they compete for the same resources they will fight for them, because securing them will guarantee that more of their kind will survive. No human society has yet managed to control population growth, so this still applies to us. Essentially, numerical superiority is the OUTCOME that indicates victory at a very primitive level. If in war we are not willing to exterminate the enemy, then we will lose.

Western societies hate this philosophy, and so we've imagined that "Quality of Life" is the OUTCOME that indicates victory after war. But is it? Does this liberal philosopy make us vulnerable to infiltration by an enemy that has managed to maintain it's numbers under our weak assaults? Does it matter, as long as extremists and violence are non-existent?

But what about a cultural war? Can infiltration by the enemy eventually lead to a cultural shift within our own population? In this case we would lose the war via cultural assimilation. If 500 million chinese migrated to Canada (no war currently exists between these countries), Canada would essentially become part of China, with predominantly chinese politics and culture. Canada is currently democratic, but under chinese culture might become communist authoritarian. Could we possibly prevent this under our current liberal philosopy? Do we want to? Could an effort to prevent it actually bring it about via constitutional legal action and lawsuits?

There is a whole hierarchy of issues that people have. And somehow they are related, and without resolution.

War over territory.
War over property.
War over ideas.

Borders. Ownership. Constitutional rights. Democracy. Solutions? Or asking for trouble?