Certainly.  and I agree that terror and nonviolence both target the civilian population&#x27;s feelings on the matter.  Also note, that has a direct effect on how front line soldiers act;  if the boss says he&#x27;ll demote me if I do X, well, I&#x27;m a lot less likely to want to do X, regardless of my feelings on the matter.    (And while I&#x27;ve never been in such a position myself, I read that killing people who are not fighting back is harder for most people than it sounds.)<p>but I think that the genius of Gandhi was that he saw that he couldn&#x27;t win through conventional military means, so he found another way;  ethics aside, I think he should be remembered as a great general; a great strategic thinker who won a war that seemed impossible to win because he considered options that were not obvious to the military leaders who tried for Indian independence before him.   (and may not have been available to those leaders... but still, it was a great innovation in strategy and tactics, really, that you could fight a war by.. not fighting.)<p>That&#x27;s the thing that seems weird about the current wave of middle-eastern terror;   if the goal is to get the US out of the middle east, terror has been woefully ineffective.    It&#x27;s possible that there is some deep game, someone trying to get the US to attack some countries and not others... but it&#x27;s also just as likely that this current wave of terror has no real strategic planning, that it&#x27;s just a howl of undirected, incoherent rage; like a man putting his fist through the drywall in his own house.<p>The latter explanation of terror actually seems more plausible to me than any grand strategic plan.