What everyone else is describing (that you cannot understand despite it being explained to you ever way possible including crayons) is the same strategy that was used in Vietnam, Afghanistan (against the Russians), Afghanistan (against the U.S.), and Iraq. It is a proven, well thought out strategy

You left out a couple that Dipe might be familiar with, at least enough to contemplate the possibility of another way of thinking. (Ha! I make a joke. I crack myself up.)

The Revolutionary War: the Americans (who thought of themselves as British until the actual British showed up) took blow after blow from one of the most powerful military forces on the planet, and after many battles and years, the British finally got tired of spending all that money and losing all those soldiers, and packed up and went home. Britain won more battles, but in the end they just got tired of the fight. The Americans never did, in spite of facing almost insurmountable odds. Why? Because they lived there .

Less well known examples, the French invasion of Russia (Napoleon). Adolph’s invasion of Russia. Wars of attrition are actually pretty common, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. That’s war. But here’s a handy list of the type:

*American Revolutionary War
World War I, Western front (stalemate until the US entered)
US Civil War
*US Vietnam War
*Soviet Afghanistan War
*Second Punic War (Hannibal)
*US Afghanistan War
Yugoslav Wars (no winner)
*World War II, Soviet Eastern Front
*Sino-Japanese War
*French Vietnam war
*Irish Republican Army vs British

Asterisks indicate conflicts in which the “weaker”, but resolute party eventually won and repelled the invader.