How was guerilla warfare countered? What's even the point of having bigger army if a bunch of shit eating civilians using hit and run tactics can rekt it?
Anon what are you talking about civilians using guerilla warfare can't wreck a well trained and proper military in battle.
Guerilla fighters do a war of attrition against proper militaries, and harass them. The key for a proper military to exterminating them for good is not to give a fuck about how they conduct the war, and kill them all.
> Guerilla fighters do a war of attrition against proper militaries, and harass them.
Not exactly. They also make enemy state unsustainable as a whole. Eliminating key figures in enemy government is also an option. Finally, establishing control over parts of state, directly displacing enemy government.
Basically, successful guerrilla warfare turns into revolution of some kind.
> The key for a proper military to exterminating them for good is not to give a fuck about how they conduct the war, and kill them all.
Germans got this genius idea too. Tried extensively in Belarus after their head honcho got assassinated. Didn't help.
See above. Unless you have complete numerical superiority, this doesn't work.
Yeah. Essentially, you have 3 different options when it comes to COIN.
1) Kill all the civilians
2) Relocate/imprison all the civilians
3) Convince the civilians to be on your side
It all boils down to the fact that guerrilla campaigns are only successful if they have popular support.
>What's even the point of having bigger army if a bunch of shit eating civilians using hit and run tactics can rekt it?Because Guerilla Armies by themselves couldnt win wars or launch fucking offensive wars.
Guerilla warfare is best warfare imho. Many people seem to have some kind of instinctive aversion towards it, but it's obviously not a bad way for the less well equipped side in a confrontation to wage a defensive war (Soviets in Afghanistan, RPF In Rwanda, the Viet Cong, the list can be made long). I'm not a dirty dirty commie, but Maos stuff on fighting the "peoples war" is pretty fucking brilliant, and I think that Ho Chi Min was a pretty cool dude. Sure it can be taxing on the civilian population but with popular support it's the best alternative.
>inb4 muh honorable face 2 face war
Sorry buddy, but that died at the Marne, or possibly 15 years prior in south Africa.
Yeah, but he wrote alot about popular support and the need to have the civilian population on your side, as well as how to utilize it. I've read more about the subject in the '30s than later tho.
Was just thinking about that, I guess you could make a case for Sri Lanka or Colombia, though both those groups got son of their demands through in the end (Might be more examples in south/ Latin America, idk).
Yo yo yo:
If you've not seen this film, see it. It is a fantastic showcase on how guerrilla movements operate, how conventional forces can contain them, and exactly how brutal the methods utilized must be. It also demonstrates how a conventional force may win militarily, but lose politically.
> Organized resistance
> In February 1945 the UPA issued an order to liquidate kurins (battalions) and sotnya's (companies) and to act predominantly by choty’s (platoons).
I say this resistance looks much less organized than before. Also, compare their scale of activity before and after May '45.
Either way, what does constitute defeat of a guerrilla army?
You should read the thesis by David Galula, a french officer who served in the Algerian war.
Basically, in a counter-insurgency war, you have to combine extreme military might, concentrating your forces to occupy strategic ground and cut off supply lines, and doing a lot of work with the population to make sure to turn them on your side.
It's enormously rare for guerilla armies to actually wear down and defeat regular armies. Enormously more common is for the guerilla armies to avoid contact with the regular army for as long as possible in order to strike past it, aiming at civilian infrastructure that supports the regular army.
It is usually defeated by the creation of policing abilities great enough that the guerillas cannot control territory even in the absence of the regular army's presence.
The FLN in Algeria did without. Once it became clear they were going to win nations started giving them some really anemic token support but they had already won by then.
You can win militarily by using concentration camps or just killing everybody, but nowadays that's expensive in political capital. For a real political victory over a guerilla movement I'd look at the SAS v IRA. The brits won through bribery, torture, assassination, all kinds of scummy dirty work but they never killed large amounts of people and most vitally they had organized and motivated local allies.
>Why do people think the NVA and Viet Cong defeated the US military in battle, and were the reason why the US withdrew
Nobody thinks that the North Vietnamese defeated the US military in battle. Everyone knows, however, that the discontent with the rising cost, blood, and seeming unending nature of the VIetnam war is what pushed the Americans out. In that sense, the Viet Cong and the NVA won.
Also the Partisans in Yugoslavia. Until about 1943 they had practically no foreign support, and yet were controlling more than a third of the area of Bosnia and Croatia. Yes, most of that area was forests and hills in the middle of nowhere, but that's where guerrillas tend to operate best.
>What is the Malayan Emergency
Don't let the Vietnam Syndrome dissuade you. Counter-insurgency is very possible. It's just that it will often have to include harsh measures and constant overpowering.
Also, while Iraq was a fuck-up, we were actually making very significant COIN progress after the troop surge (see the Anbar Awakening). Our big mistake was that we did not follow through with more support, but instead withdrew after we saw signs of progress.
The support of a COIN popular resistance and projection of power (combined with strategic hamleting) must be CONSTANT until the insurgency is not just "degraded" but destroyed.
This is why Afghanistan will go the way of Iraq. We were making progress after the "Obama surge", but we began withdrawing after said progress. Once the withdrawal is complete and the Afghan military is deprived of US aid and support, the Taliban and/or ISIS will make significant inroads.
>Germans got this genius idea too. Tried extensively in Belarus after their head honcho got assassinated. Didn't help.
Because the Cheka was there the whole time funding the partisans and giving them information. Without external factors for aid most guerrillas would get wrecked with that type of approach, in fact the Soviets applied the same approach in Afghanistan, it was so effective that the Mujahideen were on their last legs before the US intervened.
This. Malaya is the textbook on how to COIN.
Good books on the subject.
The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya
Counter-Insurgency: Lessons from History
Modern Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies: Guerrillas and their Opponents since 1750
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam
Also, Obama has made it clear that it does not aim for the "destruction" of the Taliban, but rather its weakening. Which is why we will ultimately end up losing Afghanistan and it will become another anarchic real life open-world RPG a la Iraq and Syria.
No the French Army completely crushed the FLN but the brutality in which they carried out their methods made the war extremely unpopular back home in France, losing all political support that De Gaulle was forced to grant independence to Algeria despite winning militarily.
Thanks for the recommendations anon. I have Soup With a Knife, and will hopefully get the others.
I'm not a military general stationed in the Persian Gulf, but I still find this shit interesting.
I am a urban High School teacher though...so maybe the lessons of COIN apply lol.
This. Vietcong really didn't do shit but harass the Americans until they crushed them. People consider them successful only because America lost the overall war which had nothing to do with Vietcong's achievements.
That is really to the NVA's credit. VC got wrecked, the US was fucking tired of bullshit jungle wars and signed a treaty and fucked off, NVA then steamrolled the ARVN and unified Vitenam.
Magical communists. Not only they've mastered teleportation behind enemy lines, they've also conquered time.
It was switched to a lesser scale indeed but it was mostly done in order to gain even more mobility and ditch stuff like mortars which became unnecessary and potentially even harmful.
Defeat is, well, approximate cease of organized resistance which in case of Ukrainians happened when Shukhevych's successor Kuk was captured in 1954. Some groups lingered on up until 1960 but it was nothing like an actual guerrilla movement.
>Comparing Vietnam to Malaya.
Yes, Malaya had the huge spectre of Chinese/Soviet intervention and escalation hanging over it. Just like Vietnam.
No, the army was doing horribly outside of Algiers until Challe came in- then they raped the ALN inside Algeria but they were still waiting right on the other side of the tunisnan border.
Then Challe got axed because by then the war had basically rotted the fourth republic and the army was in constant revolt.
The French got absolutely and decisively BTFO despite winning every pitched battle, just like vietnam. That's what gorilla warfare is abut family.
Furthermore DeGaulle didn't just "give" Algeria independence to save France the trouble, he was desperate to negotiate and end it before france had a civil war, and the FLN were turning negotiations down for petty reasons because they could afford to wait. They ended up getting absolutely everything they wanted because they dragged the french through the mud, made everyone sick and tired of them, internationalized and politicized the conflict, won the sympathies of foreigners, and most of all the FLN and the ALN stayed extant and functional over 6 years of France desperately trying to wipe them out as organizations. Algeria is basically as clear-cut as guerrilla victories get.
First you kill the intellectuals and journalists, then you kill the guerrilla itself and the collaborators.
Since the intellectuals and journalists are also dead, there won't be anyone to complain about "human rights abuses" so you have to restrain yourself.
That's how the Soviet Union was successful in stoping anti-communist resistance in Eastern Europe after WWII.
Total, indiscriminate warfare. But not by an invading force but air assets and pure ordnance. Imagine you didn't give a fuck about international sanctions and wiped out guerrilla strongholds without contempt.
stop being the level of dumb that you are
Total warfare is not conventional warfare. Learn the difference. Recent wars have been conventional in terms of their logistics. Imagine you didn't need to legitimately project a force that followed Geneva protocols and didn't have the UN and the international community breathing down your back. Now imagine you have superior technology and military assets, as well as power projection. Ideologies are not bulletproof. They're just wearing very expensive vests.
Blame conventional war for furthering guerrilla warfare.
Why does left-wing terrorism work, and right-wing terrorism not? As Carl Schmitt explained in Theory of the Partisan, terrorist, guerrilla or partisan warfare is never effective on its own. While an effective military strategy, it is only effective as one fork of a pincer attack. The terrorist succeeds when, and only when, he is allied to what Schmitt called an interested third party - either a military or political force.
Left-wing terrorism succeeds as the violent arm of a political assault that would probably be overwhelming in any case. In every case, the terrorist plays Mutt in a Mutt-and-Jeff act. Right-wing terrorism in the modern world is cargo-cult terrorism: Mutt without Jeff. Indeed, in historical cases where right-wing terrorism has been successful, in every case we see it aligned with powerful forces within the state. Right-wing terrorism worked in Weimar Germany, for instance, or prewar Japan, because it aligned with fascist conspiracies in the security forces. Somehow I don't see a lot of that in 2011 Norway.
Thus, we note that there are two responses to terrorism: the natural response and the unnatural response. The natural response is to take revenge on the terrorist and everyone even remotely resembling him. If he is a Muslim, the natural response is to chastise the Muslims. When Grynzspan, a Jew, kills the German vom Rath, the German people must chastise the Jews. And, of course, when a right-wing piece of filth slaughters the cream of the Norwegian Komsomol, all racists and reactionaries are automatically suspect.
The unnatural response - which will not happen by itself, but can be made to happen by a sufficiently powerful psychological-warfare machine - is to look instead at the grievances of the attacker. After all, no one commits terrorism unless he has some complaint. No complaint - no terrorism. Thus while the Nazi response to the terrorism of Grynzspan is to collectively punish the Jews, the Atlantic response to the terrorism of Grynzspan (ineffective and thus illegitimate) is to attribute it to the injustices suffered by the Jews. This of course is also our response to the terrorism of Mandela (effective and thus legitimate).
Actually, there was no nuance at all in the response of the great and the good, the same wise and trusted organs now deploring ABB with the sound of a thousand jet engines, to Nelson Mandela. There's no room for nuance when a saint is in the room. But St. Osama is a bridge too far.
So in typical cases, when the cause is good but the means a little too gory, the interested third party of a successful terrorist campaign adopts a strategy of dualism. Here is our Mutt-and-Jeff act: the unnatural response. We can always tell a Mutt-and-Jeff strategy because Mutt and Jeff have the same demands. Mutt tells you to satisfy these demands, or die. Jeff tells you to satisfy these demands, to "take the wind out of Mutt's sails." Also, Jeff and Mutt are frequently found at the same parties, enjoying the hell out of one another's company.
Thus, Islamic terrorism is productive, because it results in increasing communal deference to the Islamic community and its progressive allies. Fascist terrorism is counterproductive, because it results in increasing communal intolerance toward the fascist community - which of course has no conservative allies.
Wouldn't matter. You're there to win, not to pander to the international community.
It's also interestingly why they developed the term "war crime". War itself a crime, and watering down the word to make certain acts less negligible than others doesn't make a difference.
That too. Also
>Islamic guy blows something up
>"We have to prevent a backlash"
>"Let's give money and power to these moderate Muslims to prevent it"
>Right-wing terrorist shoots some people
>"Lol rightists are surely despicable from now on they are completely excluded from any debate in polite society"
The same is true for guerrilla warfare. You only win if you have a sympathetic media and intelligentsia. As I said, the Soviet Union and other communist governments of the Eastern bloc had absolutely no difficulty in destroying opposition to communism in countries such as Poland, Romania and the Baltic nations, where there was armed resistance. Why? Because this resistance had no support in the intelligentsia and the media, not even in the West, where most people didn't even knew it existed.
That's why if you want to win guerrilla warfare, you have to kill intellectuals first. It's the same with anti-terrorism, that's what this guy understood.
what progress has islamic terrorism actually made though? every government world wide actively seeks them out and destroys them. all they have succeeded in doing is weakening their own countries for decades to come. in muslim countries their is no progressive ally of islamic radicals.
even western liberals who complain about islamophobia provide no real support for islamic terrorism either at home or in the middle east because they have no real political demands or capital to bargain with.
>How was guerilla warfare countered?
Option 1 Send womens, olds above 70s and kids below 14 to concentrate camps, allowed them to bring their money with nothing else. The rest, conscript them to your Army, remember to allocate them to different sections, cut their communicate lines, bombing that place to the ground
Option 2 If they resist, bombing that place to the ground with its womens, childs, olds and the rest.
It's like your balls haven't dropped yet. Being brutal is the opposite of a good strategy. The Americans killed like 20% of the population of Iraq, while the USSR killed like a million Afghans.
AND WE STILL LOST.
It's when you shoot everything and waste ammo. That requires more supply, which allows more chance for IED's to hit your supply network.
They'll then start giving up on the roads and use helicopters to supply cut off bases.
shooting down helicopters is really easy and as a bonus they're really hard to replace.
>The Americans killed like 20% of the population of Iraq
>out of 37,056,169
lrn 3 math
weird. No one has mentioned the Algerian Civil War yet.
It's far less publicized than the conflict with France, but it's still very interesting to see the Algerians succeeding exactly where the French failed: a COIN victory:
The British did a neat thing in South Africa during the later part of the Boar War. Instead of going after the gorillas themselves they went after their woman and children destroying their farms and forcing them into camps. This demoralised the men forcing them to come out of hiding and surrender to save their families and livelihoods. Disregarding the moral ambiguity of such a tactic It work rather well in ending the conflict.
>Check your facts
> post clearly states the wrong name
> should still be acceptable name and should actually override the correct name because so many morons can't get it right
>Check your facts
> ignores the actual meaning of the post
>Check your facts
Eradicate yourself, please.
> take over the southern farmlands
> use this to starve the North into submission
> still get your ass kicked
> century later 4channers believe the famine was the North's fault
It is not easy. The guerrilla armies, to be successful, they need well-trained forces (ie not "shit eating civilians"), traveling routes and popular support (or at least tolerance of the population). It is essential to address these three factors. If they have where to attack and where to escape, you are screwed. If the population does not react to the guerrillas as a threat, or even resolve to support them, you are screwed.
Concentration camps and the like often have disastrous results because they show what side you are - and it's not the side of the people.
>How was guerrilla warfare countered?
Usually by decimating the population and routing out instigators.
This was not new, it was either fight to win diplomacy or fight to kill the enemy, because either way a big bad foreign army is walking on their lawn and they as hell don't like that.
Because a big army can seize a town and ports and airfields, securing trade and travel as well as goods. That means the geurrilas are stuck starving and wiping their asses with leaves.
When "guerrila" armies win, they generally have external funding or some way to deal with search and destroy missions.
The Indian paramilitary forces have been fighting maoists for the last 2 or 3 decades. The Maoists being citizens, the army can't enter the conflict.. Just yet.
>How was guerilla warfare countered?
Malaya in 1957 is generally considered the textbook case of counter-insurgency success.
>foster nationalism to deligitimate insurgents
>The British leveraged radio and film to spread an anti-insurgent message and help win the “hearts and minds” of the people.
>resource monopoly - Food denial was used extensively to root out insurgents.
>The British targeted areas that heavily supported insurgents, confiscated all food, and only distributed rationed, cooked rice from a central location. Small patrols with local trackers would then be used in the surrounding jungle to locate insurgents.
>Economic, political, resource dominance - Fully coordinate all social, political, economic, police, and military policies to strengthen the local host government and reduce the desire to support an insurgency amongst the people; functional chain of command throughout all levels of society to win “hearts and minds” by seeming more legitimate than insurgents
>work behind the scenes as much as possible, let local government stand in front being visible, transition to autonomy of local government ASAP
>Why does left-wing terrorism work, and right-wing terrorism not?
>right wing terrorism doesn't work
There are beer halls full of out-of-work veterans in brown and black shirts who would disagree. You might have to hold a night of long knives later to deal with them. And if you consider guerrilla/terrorists seeking theocracy "right wing", you might have further complications with your theory.
anyone who does is fucking retarded
this guy is correct
you know something that always annoyed me was that people say "oh it was such a bloody and brutal war for the US" and don't get me wrong they are 100% correct
but we only had something like 58,000 people killed over the course of a decade
that really isn't alot.
but like you said, people were not willing to put up with the rising costs, continued casualties and how the war seemed to never end. Which are all valid reasons for wanting to leave.
>right wing terrorism doesn't work
Maybe that's just the conclusion of leftist academics in a heavily leftist century of scholarship.
20 percent of Iraq did not die in the Second Gulf War and Post-Invasion phase, and the majority of those that did were killed in the myriad sectarian conflicts that took place as a result of the fall of Saddam.
In 50 or 100 years, the North will join the South. It just makes more economic sense. It'll take those old hardline retards on both sides to die first, so I guess...uh...good job stopping the inevitable for a generation.
You be clearer on the matter of "fostering nationalism". Let us be blunt: what was fostered was ethnic hatred for the Chinese. That's not to say the action was the wrong one, it was the best thing for the Brits to do, but we can't really lose the importance of ethno-cultural tensions in deciding who gets the shaft and how.
> How was guerilla warfare countered?
Don’t give the people a reason for starting a guerrilla war in the first place.
Guerilla warfare seeks to isolate the occupying forces. You can only win if you isolate them first.
Punish the disobedient and reward the collaborator. Administer collective punishment so that people will monitor each other for you.
Execute the entire family of guerillas so that they will think twice before taking up arms against you.
Have informants everywhere. Infiltrate the enemy and destroy them.
Divide and conquer. Offer amnesty, than employ those who have turned themselves in.
>Let's give money and power to these moderate Muslims to prevent it
That's not what happened. Different ideological factions gave money, weapons and training to goat-fuckers during and shortly after the Cold War.
The USA is pretty insistent on weaponizing and employing locals in it's wars even recently.
All of you edgy fucks saying shit like:
>Brutalize them into submission
>Disregard human rights
>Put everyone into concentration camps
>Collectively punish and kill family and associates
Are fucking retarded. That might work if you just want to genocide the population, but otherwise you're just going to fan the flames and encourage others who didn't really care in the first place to start fighting against you. Imagine if you were invaded but you didn't really give a fuck until your friend's family were all summarily executed because someone was accused of being an insurgent, or your neighbors are being rounded up. The guerrillas already believe they're morally justified, by using these tactics you'd be proving that to everyone. Additionally, the point of laws of war is that if both sides agree to it then everyone is better off; one side agrees to treat the enemy's prisoners fairly, not use chemical weapons, not execute surrendering soldiers, etc. so that their enemy agrees to do the same.