When engaging a technologically superior enemy, the basis for asymmetrical warfare has been set. Simply defined asymmetrical warfare is the type of war where the sides fighting are unevenly matched militarily. Thus the question becomes what produces military asymmetry or what makes one side more technologically superior than the other? We can understand technology not only as a physical term involving the presence or the ability to acquire the latest computers, and weapons but also it's effect on how the force employs and deploys that technology. Thus technology affects the material on the battlefield and the organization of the force that uses that technology.
Material can be defined as the physical presence on the battlefield, such as weapons, computers, vehicles etc that each side brings to bear on the battle but also funding and research that is required to create that material. Organization can be described as how each side employs the technology but also how it deploys that technology. Any technologically superior force will have more material and a higher level of organization for employing and deploying its forces.
Furthermore it can be assumed that it costs, in man power and money, a great deal to produce material and the accompanying organization surrounding the technology is uses. Thus we can assume there is an underlying level of organization, a bureaucracy and logistical system, that allows the technologically superior force to move its material to the field for employment and deployment. Consequently, this bureaucracy and logistical system, whether it is state or corporate born, creates a degree of rigidity in the technologically superior force.
So what can a technologically inferior force do to counter a technologically superior enemy? Being highly adaptive, avoid direct engagement, high attack celerity and go for "soft" parts. Realize that the superior force is at a disadvantage for being superior in material and organization in terms of technology. That is the inferior force should extend the battlefield not just to encompass the superior force's material and organization on the field but underlying bureaucracy and logistics. The inferior force should embrace opposite mechanics than the superior force, less dependence on technology meaning less material and a looser organization.
When engaging a superior force it is important to remember the saying, "He who sets the terms of the war sets the terms for the peace." Or slightly modified, who sets the terms of the fight can set the terms for the war and then the peace. What this means that in addition to organizing and fighting, it is important to keep the when and where of combat. The less superior force, due to its flexibility and overall celerity of action can choose when and where it fights.
The overarching strategy to counter a superior force is the idea of a war of a thousand pin pricks. That is the superior force's material and organization, and its underlying bureaucracy and logistics are very costly. Being costly means that the superior can not necessarily exist in the field as long as the inferior force or endure the political outcomes of such a drawn out war. The inferior force using its speed, adaptability, avoidance of direct confrontation, and its ability to not only strike on the superior force on the field but also its underlying organization at the time and place it chooses means that the inferior force will always have the advantage.
In conclusion, as the world becomes "flatter," that is money, information, and small arms are easier to acquire by individuals and small groups the overall nature of warfare has become more asymmetrical. Look at the defining conflicts and violent moments of our time: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 9/11, the Mumbai attacks or the war in Gaza, all these are linked via the usage of asymmetrical warfare or its components. It is important to realize that war, now more than ever, is not about technical superiority but each sides ability to adapt and evolve to be "successful" given its context.