The thing is that the view has not reversed, but rather the context has changed. Changing the context changes the meaning.
I see more a case of "changed meanings" resulting in changed context to claim views have not reversed. 
Ground attack reduces enemy strenght. Interdiction reduces enemy org and supplies. That is all i am saying.
If that really was all you had said - as you state - I would not have disagreed with your PoV. But actually, it is only an introduction to much more you say about the topic. Most of that extra I disagree with.
So for winning a war of movement interdiction is usually the better mission as it helps to reduce the duration of land battles more than ground attack could in the short run.
Point #1 CHANGING MEANINGS - there really is no such thing as "war of movement" except your particular spot-of-the-moment meaning of that phrase - whatever that may be. All war entails movement even if it is just bullets flying or people falling as they die. Had your post followed more conventional phrases such as "static front" or blitzkrieg there might be easier acceptance of your statement. But you precisely inject an undefined phrase to so be able to include or exclude anything you wish - such as divisions moving to the front to say that is "war of movement". But your discussion fails to clarify if the bombing being discussed is targeting the enemy stack player is doing land combat with, or are your aircraft targeting divisions in other provinces moving to that land battle. Unclear scenarios can be interpreted any way one wishes, I suppose, to so result in Point #2 - CHANGED CONTEXT.
Using interdiction on an enemy that has just lost a land battle tends to be a waste because regaining org is the highest then. Reducing enemy supplies tends to have a more meaningful effect then, so interdiction is not a complete waste either.
A unit that just lost land battle is a unit that is retreating - which is also a "war of movement". Or is that excluded from your meaning? Anyway, any unit that just lost battle does not have its highest org then. Org is lowest when retreat starts. But you confuse it with stating instead org regain rate". But the simple fact is, if unit has no org starting retreat, and daily bombing kills all org regain, the unit will finish retreat with nil org. The fact that org regain rates do vary depending on percentage that org is at is meaningless to the discussion because the discussion used the parameters of 1) nil org at start of retreat and 2) all regained org gets eliminated each day of bombing - even when regain rate is at its highest. And if you don't ground attack from start of retreat, once you do begin bombing retreating units, any org regained will never be taken away. So the opposite of what you say is true. If you will ground attack retreating units, do so immediately or they will recover org and do so at their fastest rate in the early days of the retreat.
But rest of your quote is also wrong, and - typically - ends with a contradiction. Reducing supplies for a retreating unit doesn't even occur because you are not damaging the infrastructure. But if it does occur because of some other factor, then it is a harmless effect because the supply will be ample as it is a retreating unit we are discussing here. In short, the correct and most applicable statement to replace your phrase would be, "Retreating units should not be interdicted but ground attacked. That results in small amount of strength damage with elimination of unit possible; and prevents unit regaining org". Simple, direct, and correct! Not confused with non-applicable unmeasurable effects.
The time to use interdiction is just before a moving(or at least not highly entrenched) unit joins a battle or has just joined a battle so that the own land divisions have less enemy org to overcome.
Well, turns out you can not target an individual unit in a stack all doing land battle. What you describe is not possible. The proper statement here is, "Interdiction should be used in conjunction with land attack to help reduce enemy org." Simple, correct and without impossible modifiers. As regards interdiction lessening supplies I challenge you to prove that the low supply modifier in any land battle is due to interdiction by aircraft versus the ground force attacking the enemy. Admit it, there simply is no way you can interdict an enemy corps THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING LAND COMBAT WITH and ascertain what supply loss they incurred because you can not see an enemy's stockpile. But you can see their strength and org - and that is the only things your bombing can be measured.
The ground attack mission is less picky in terms of timing, but just like interdiction it is ineffective against highly entrenched(in terms off dug in bonus) units. So using it against units that just lost their dug in bonus due to movement in the form of retreat is the first viable time to use it.
Very misleading. While interdiction is indeed less effective against dug in units (so is land combat) interdiction is the best air mission to extract whatever org reduction may be possible including dug in units that you are doing land combat with. Neither mission is more or less picky. That attribute does not exist. They are what they are. Yes, once retreat begins, ground attack is more effective than continuing interdiction. It really is very simple when it is not explained in extraneous ways.
It makes sense to use ground attack against divisions that are expected to be part of many further hours of battle which by implications means fast divisions likely not to be overrun in the short run. Slow divisions likely to be overrun soon tend to be better bashed with interdiction, as that will reduce the amount of losses they will be able to inflict on you.
Well, it doesn't make any sense to me because I have not yet found any way to target specific units in a province full of different corps. The fact is that you can target the province (ONLY) and so create an air-to-ground combat that will put the bombers values against the ground values totaled for that province. The only exception is in retreat where - if several enemy divisions retreating - a bomber stack will pick one retreating division as the target.... but player has no control of which division.
CAS are the unit best suited for interdiction and ground attack and because of the later they are best suited for reducing fort strenght. It takes a while to wiggle ones braincells around that idea.
Just look at the CAS hard and soft attack values to realize their superiority for attacking ground forces. That fort levels are destroyed with ground attack but not as much with interdiction is really a flaw. All kinds of bombing would deteriorate any defenses, if possible. Clearly, larger bombs used in strategic bombing would have the greatest effect on massive concrete structures like the forts in AoD, but seems AoD thinks Ground Attack is the proper mission to do that. Makes little sense, but as long as it works, it's fine with me.
