Nasrallah's victory says that democracies can be counted on to fight on the enemy's terms, disdaining the capability they have to win.
Important point. Much has been said about proportionalism, as if the West has to keep one hand tied behind its back in the fight this bizarre enemy, simply because we are more technologically advanced and therefore it wouldn't be a "fair" or proportional response to them if we used our full forces. The problem is that they have a different type of advantage: not technological, but the very fact of their dispersed, non-military, civilian based warfare, which actually gives them an advantage over us because we abide by the rules and they don't. I'm not sure how this can be dealt with; perhaps, as the author implies, what we really have to do is sit down and decide that we want to win, that we need to win, that we must win - and then do it.
If that's original, you just coined a great term.
Think about when Sherman marched across Georgia. Civilian based warefare would have made absolutely no impact on his mission.