Guerilla Warfare

[Roy]

AVL1984: In some circles the mental conditioning process is referred to as dumbing down. Home schooling or private schooling could make a difference, but many families can't afford the cost of private schools or spare having one parent at home to teach the kids.

Guerilla tactics against the Union soldiers might have led to the CSA winning and we wouldn't be suffering from so much FEDERAL control right now. AVL1984

This is a quote worth commenting on and I agree. In that day, the public would have needed to be willing to endure suffering for aiding and abetting the guerillas, because the guerillas would have needed the aid of the locals. The guerillas would would also have needed to have a resolve about them which would have overshadowed immediate concerns for their suffering families and fellow citizens.

Today it is easy to look back and say what better sacrifices our forefathers could have made for us, in order to make things better for us. Future generations of Americans may be more condemning of our generation if we don't shake this notion that the only acceptable methods of settling things are in our Godless courts and through our rigged electoral processes.

Roy

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Roy:
AVL1984: In some circles the mental conditioning process is referred to as dumbing down. Home schooling or private schooling could make a difference, but many families can't afford the cost of private schools or spare having one parent at home to teach the kids.


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Guerilla tactics against the Union soldiers might have led to the CSA winning and we wouldn't be suffering from so much FEDERAL control right now. AVL1984

This is a quote worth commenting on and I agree. In that day, the public would have needed to be willing to endure suffering for aiding and abetting the guerillas, because the guerillas would have needed the aid of the locals. The guerillas would would also have needed to have a resolve about them which would have overshadowed immediate concerns for their suffering families and fellow citizens.

Today it is easy to look back and say what better sacrifices our forefathers could have made for us, in order to make things better for us. Future generations of Americans may be more condemning of our generation if we don't shake this notion that the only acceptable methods of settling things are in our Godless courts and through our rigged electoral processes.

Roy </font>[/QUOTE]Roy, I agree. People may eventually have to start taking things into their own hands to take their government back. But, how many of us would be willing to sacrifice our lives, money, time in prison, etc., to fight for what is right? I've found a few. My father was one. He taught us very well not to be trustful of our gov't "servants". They truly do not in any way shape or form fit the definition of a servant. They do not represent their constituencies best interests, but instead, seem to be lining their own pockets with goodies and special privileges every day. Put them on the same retirement system, medical care, and pay scales that many/most Americans work today, and they would quickly change their tunes. Now you've got me FIRED UP!!! LOL

Well, that's my rant for today.

AVL1984

 

[rsr]

AVL said:

"I truly believe this is the case, Roy. I know my nephews and neices are being conditioned every day in the public school to accept pacifism as the right way, and the War in Iraq as something that was unnecessary and unneeded."

Well, good for them. It was unnecessary and unneeded. Better think of a better screed against the public schools.

 

[AVL1984]

You're entitled to your opinion rsr. I believe it was totally necessary. Saddam had violated UN Sanctions and things he agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War for 12 years, and pushed the limits every chance he got. Yet, the UN was weak and didn't enforce anything that was in the agreements. I'm glad the US had enough guts to stand up and do what was right and finally end the nonsense.

AVL1984

 

[Melanie]

Riddle me this, where is the first documented evidence of guerilla warfare/tactics.

I have always thought the Spanish during the Napoleonic period brought this into the fore being an invaded country with inferior forces and weaponery.

Some military historian should be able to enlighten me on this .....

 

[Dr. Bob]

Read I & II Maccabees. The tactics used by the Hasmonean brothers were classical guerilla warfare.

As was the Seleucid (Greek Syrian) response.

When they tried to arm and fight a pitched battle, the Hasmoneans were crushed (pun intended).

 

[Stratiotes]

The name "guerrilla" was first applied to the style in the Spanish resistance to Napolean but the style predates that name as Dr. Bob points out.

A great little book:
_From the barrel of a gun : a history of guerrilla, revolutionary, and counterinsurgency warfare, from Romans to the present_ by John Ellis actually goes back further than the Romans, as the title implies, and includes a brief overview of the Hasmonean brothers as well as some examples that predated them I believe....its been a while since I read it.

The Swiss militia probably has its roots in the resistance to Roman rule by the mountain people of ancient times.

Its rather a difficult question to answer though since some people would argue definition of what constitutes a "guerrilla" force. Some also draw a distinctions such as "guerrilla" as opposed to "partisan" or some other symantic nuances.

 

[Melanie]

Thank you for the info. The warfare of a inferior force with poorer weaponary etc has always been with us, I must go and read up that Chinese book I have somewhere on war and tactics, there is no doubt a paragraph or two there as well.

 

[Stratiotes]

Speaking of Chinese books - most guerrilla leaders have found a great deal of "inspiration" from Sun Tzu. I think to be a student of guerrilla warfare, once must be a student of Sun Tzu, who said:
"[T]o win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

 

[CoachC]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Some thoughts to throw into the mix.

1. Thank Goodness the southerners didn't begin guerilla warfare tactics. Grant and Sherman were very harsh men and the burning and destruction would have been 100 times what it already had been. It also would have been much longer. Kind of hard to "Remember the Maine" when your still fighting Mannassas Junction or Antietam.

2.If we were two nations in 1941 would the Germans have won the war? Would Pearl Harbor have been the first of many Japanese victories?

3. The discussion of guerilla warfare and Iraq is very interesting. I worry that the damage is already done to us on the home front. If we can't not be harsh enough to win then we can't win. I don't know that the Left in this nation will allow a Republican president they despise to do what must be done to insure victory.

I close at three points. God is good.
2.

 

[Stratiotes]

Originally posted by CoachC:

3. The discussion of guerilla warfare and Iraq is very interesting. I worry that the damage is already done to us on the home front. If we can't not be harsh enough to win then we can't win. I don't know that the Left in this nation will allow a Republican president they despise to do what must be done to insure victory.

I think this is generally why the American military is doomed to fail in counter-insurgency. We tend to think that the best solution is massive response . Such methods do not work in counter-insurgency though. The reasons are really pretty obvious when you think about them.

1. First off, the struggle is idealogical and not military - it is not a fight over a piece of sand in Iraq, its a fight over an idea in the hearts and minds of the people. Capturing a chunks of sand that almost immediately falls back into insurgent control cannot be our measure of success.

2. Second, since it is an idealogical struggle and not a military one - the goal of the insurgent is to make it appear to be a David and Goliath struggle. If they (David) wins an encounter then they appear the hero winning against the odds. If Goliath (the militarily superior force) wins an encounter, then they appear to be bullies beating a little boy with a whip. Goliath can hurt David in a fight but doing so only wins David more support.

I think we have to consider some successful counter-insurgency operations and not jump to massive force out of frustration. Rather than bombing cities where civilians are inevitably hurt and killed in the process (making even more enemies out of the people we are trying to win to our side) the British success, for example, was sending small units after the insurgents to get only the "bad guys" and limit non-combatant deaths. They also spent more time helping the non-combatants than they did chasing bad-guys. The goal is to let the people know that you hold no animosity for them and that the insurgents are using them...its rather hard to convince them when they see women and children in the neighboring city being pulled from bomb rubble. Try as you might, you can never win that way.

There are more reasons...I'll get off the soap box for now though.

A great little book - real short and easy read -
_War of the Flea: Classic Study of Guerrilla Warfare_ by Robert Taber

 

[mioque]

All you types who think that guerilla warfare is a sure way to win, ought to remember the Boer war.
http://www.anglo-boer.co.za/

There are ways a popular guerillamovement can be defeated (think of that charming British invention called concentration camps) and a civilian population doesn't want to be on the receiving end of those ways.

 

[Stratiotes]

Guerrillas can be beaten, but not by greater fire-power.

Officers in Iraq

I'd question too whether or not the war often referred to as "England's Vietnam" would be considered an example of winning necessarily. A better example might be the Malayan Emergency

 

[mioque]

Stratiotes
The British did succeed in destroying the Boer Republic and a number of British people (Churchill and Baden Powell among others) went on to have glorious careers thanks in part to their exploits during that war.
And letting 25.000 civilians (not counting anybody without pink skin) die of hardship in concentrationcamps is also something of an accomplishment ...

 

[Dr. Bob]

Lost my great-grandfather in the Transvaal in 1901 (Second Boer War). His death was listed as "unknown", often a euphemism for ambush, booby-trap or guerilla activity.

Hope to visit his grave (if I can find it) on my next trip to Africa.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Where can we find specific tacticts used by Israel, especially David, in the O.T. ? Could these be consisered Guerilla ?

He brought Goliath's head to Jerusalem, as a sign of his plans for the city. Certainly barbaric.

 

[Stratiotes]

As an aside on the Boer War - great book and movie: Breaker Morant.

mioque, I concede your point to a degree but I still think there are ways to win that are far more effective and the Malay emergency would have been a far better UK example than the Boer War of how its done. And, I wonder if it works in every culture. The Boer War was still, in essence, a european on european war. And note that I am not one to say it is impossible to win against guerrillas, it is just impossible to "bomb them into the stone age" as the common thought goes in the US military mind.

Curtis, that book I mentioned earlier in the thread covers some OT guerrilla examples I believe.

mioque (or anyone), have you read Thomas Pakenham's book on the Boer War? Its on my list of books to read soon based on what I've heard about it. I started to read it once and got sidetracked by another book and had to take it back to the library. I'll be giving it a go again soon.

 

[mioque]

"it is just impossible to "bomb them into the stone age" as the common thought goes in the US military mind."
"
If they seriously believe that, they are fools.

"have you read Thomas Pakenham's book on the Boer War?"
"
Not yet.

 

[Stratiotes]

A book I'm reading now is quite relevant:
_The Art of Maneuver_ by Robert Leonhard. In it Leonhard describes what is real maneuver warfare and contrasts it with the US military assertions. Some years ago, the army and marine corps both adopted maneuver warfare as their philosophy but neither has really fully realized their goal - the corps has come closest but still falls short.