I started thinking about all the guerilla wars in history, and I think the guerillas have a scary record of “victory”. I’m going to say odds are in the favor of guerillas/terrorists against conventional means.
Which brings me to Iraq. Al Queda is fighting a “guerilla” war with us, and that is disturbing. No amount of rah-rah at home will make any difference - if someone isn’t playing by the rules, you cannot beat that person in a “game”. Unless you change the way you are playing…
Technically, I don’t think we’re going to “win” in Iraq while we’re there - I think we’ll have to leave the country and the bombings will either subside (because we’re gone and there’s no one to bomb) or the bombings will continue to torment the Iraq people/government/police. Either way Bush will declare victory.
It only takes one example to prove a theory wrong. The British defeated the Chinese Malay uprising in the 1950’s. It took 12 years. It also took a political solution. Chinese Malays were originally not allowed full political rights in Malaya, and thus were sympathetic to the insurgency. However, when the British convinced the Malayan government to grant political rights to persons of ethnic Chinese descent, the support for the insurgency began to evaporate.
Of course, in Iraq, we have the opposite case. The Sunni minority enjoyed disprportionate power for many years under Saddam. When he was overthrown, they feared (with some justification) a Kurdish/Shiite backlash. Some even felt that the balance of power could tilt back in their direction if the nascent Iraqi government was overthrown. Therefore, they backed the insurgents. As soon as they realize that they are going to get equal rights under the new Iraqi Constitution, which it appears they are beginning to realize, they too will lessen their support of the insurgency. Some are just waiting on the sidelines for us to lose our political will and give up as we did in Vietnam and Somalia. As long as George Bush is in office, that will not happen.
It only takes one example to prove a theory wrong. The British defeated the Chinese Malay uprising in the 1950’s. It took 12 years. It also took a political solution. Chinese Malays were originally not allowed full political rights in Malaya, and thus were sympathetic to the insurgency. However, when the British convinced the Malayan government to grant political rights to persons of ethnic Chinese descent, the support for the insurgency began to evaporate.
Of course, in Iraq, we have the opposite case. The Sunni minority enjoyed disprportionate power for many years under Saddam. When he was overthrown, they feared (with some justification) a Kurdish/Shiite backlash. Some even felt that the balance of power could tilt back in their direction if the nascent Iraqi government was overthrown. Therefore, they backed the insurgents. As soon as they realize that they are going to get equal rights under the new Iraqi Constitution, which it appears they are beginning to realize, they too will lessen their support of the insurgency. Some are just waiting on the sidelines for us to lose our political will and give up as we did in Vietnam and Somalia. As long as George Bush is in office, that will not happen.
I suppose you think within 3 years they’ll all see the light and stop fighting so Bush can look good?
theyve’ been fighting since the fucking beginning of time and they aren’t going to stop.
i think the world underwent a massive paradigm shift on september 11th: the most powerful weapon on earth shifted from the atomic bomb to the box cutter.
It only takes one example to prove a theory wrong.
What theory do you think that disproves? The original posters thought that guerillas have a scary historical record of victory, and that the odds are on their side? I’d think it would take more than one example to prove that theory wrong, but maybe I’m hopelessly mired in the old math.
Having a model for success significantly increases the odds of winning, if one follows the model. If I may use a football analogy, just because a team has a great win-loss record at home doesn’t automatically mean they will win their next home game. If the team coming in to play them does their homework, and analyzes the successes that previous teams have had and works those into their game plan, then they can win if they execute the plan. If football teams behaved as the original poster seems to suggest our military should, then no one should even bother to show up for the next 4 weeks to play Indianapolis, I guess.
We do have a model for success against guerrilla warfare. Whether or not we are following it well is an issue that can be debated. But, to just say, as the initial poster did, that there is little or no hope of success based on historical won/loss rates is fallacious.
I went to a lecture by a Yale University professor of military history a while back, and what she indicated are the strategies for success against a guerrilla enemy are being followed in the effort against Al Qaeda. The primary tactic is to remove their “safe haven.” Guerrilla armies need a safe haven in which to train, assemble, and regroup. That is what we did in Afghanistan, where the Taliban basically gave Al Qaeda free rein. When Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan was removed, and they relocated to Iraq and other failed nations, we pursued them there. Another strategy against guerrillas is to remove their external means of support. Admittedly, this is one area where we have had some success, but more needs to be done, particularly in cutting off donations from wealthy Saudis.
I challenge the original posters assertions about the inevitability of losing to a guerrilla army simply because many of the attempts to fight them have not followed the model for success. Many counter-guerrilla operations have been limited due to geo-political or other concerns. For example, in Vietnam, we did not pursue the Vietcong and/or NVA into Laos initially, even though we knew they were using that country as a safe haven. We also failed to remove North Vietnam’s external means of support, e.g., the Soviet Union. USSR supply ships were not challenged or attacked as they were bringing ammunition to our enemy. Fortunately, in this case, the enemy does not have a superpower ally such as the USSR.
So the way to win the guerilla war is to follow the rats from one hole to the other and bomb the crap out of them? I guess that would do it but how do you pay for it when we would have to invade one country after another to chase them down? Strategy is one thing but it still has to be reasonable to follow the strategy.
The primary tactic is to remove their “safe haven.” Guerrilla armies need a safe haven in which to train, assemble, and regroup. That is what we did in Afghanistan, where the Taliban basically gave Al Qaeda free rein. When Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan was removed, and they relocated to Iraq and other failed nations, we pursued them there.
Yet, oddly, the number of terror attacks from Al Qaeda around the world have increased.
**Another strategy against guerrillas is to remove their external means of support. **
Considering that our involvement in Iraq has created a huge influx of young people looking to destroy us, I just don’t see this happening. Our government is way too cozy with Saudi Arabia and that I believe is going to haunt us in the future.
I went to a lecture by a Yale University professor of military history a while back, and what she indicated are the strategies for success against a guerrilla enemy are being followed in the effort against Al Qaeda. The primary tactic is to remove their “safe haven.” Guerrilla armies need a safe haven in which to train, assemble, and regroup. That is what we did in Afghanistan, where the Taliban basically gave Al Qaeda free rein. When Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan was removed, and they relocated to Iraq and other failed nations, we pursued them there. Another strategy against guerrillas is to remove their external means of support. Admittedly, this is one area where we have had some success, but more needs to be done, particularly in cutting off donations from wealthy Saudis.
I might point out that there was no al Qaeda presence of any significance in Iraq until we “failed” the nation…
What are the other “failed nations” to which al Qaeda fled, and why haven’t we invaded them? You mean Belgium?
British lost our Revolutionary War with us, for one…
Vietnam was a war of many guerilla tactics.
Wikipedia was my source… I looked up “guerilla warfare” and it was interesting how many wars were won using guerilla warfare. It’s that whole “you can’t win if you’re playing by the rules” thing. We can’t throw a battallion at the terrorists/insurgents up on some hill.
"I might point out that there was no al Qaeda presence of any significance in Iraq until we “failed” the nation… "
And, I might point out that the Senate Intelligence Committee Report states otherwise:
“Conclusion 95. That the Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment on safe haven - that alQaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq…was reasonable.” It is also known that al Zarqawi is/was a high-ranking AQ operative who fled to Iraq to recieve medical treatment after he was wounded in Afghanistan.
“What are the other “failed nations” to which al Qaeda fled, and why haven’t we invaded them? You mean Belgium?”
Somalia, Yemen, Chechnya to name a few. And, we have conducted some operations in those other countries, to include some successful drone attacks.
Look at your map. Israel is one little nation surrounded by large hostile Muslim countries that hate their guts. These hostile nations would like nothing better than to wipe Israel off the map and kill every Jew. That’s why the Palestinian issue will never be resolved. The hardliners of which make up a really significant proportion are not merely satisfied with setting up a Palestinian State. And it’s only very recently that a few of these nations have developed tenuous diplomatic relations with Israel.
Despite that, you have Israel, without oil surviving and thriving. One thing is for sure, they didn’t achieve this by packing up when the going gets tough nor did they say, “Oh we better just leave them terrorists alone, not retaliate and they will stop their attacks because they will have no reason to attack anymore.”
"I might point out that there was no al Qaeda presence of any significance in Iraq until we “failed” the nation… "
And, I might point out that the Senate Intelligence Committee Report states otherwise:
“Conclusion 95. That the Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment on safe haven - that alQaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq…was reasonable.” It is also known that al Zarqawi is/was a high-ranking AQ operative who fled to Iraq to recieve medical treatment after he was wounded in Afghanistan.
“What are the other “failed nations” to which al Qaeda fled, and why haven’t we invaded them? You mean Belgium?”
Somalia, Yemen, Chechnya to name a few. And, we have conducted some operations in those other countries, to include some successful drone attacks.
So you agree that there was no significant al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded, and you can’t explain why we haven’t invaded those countries you mentioned? After all, when you consider what we did in Afghanistan, “some operations” seems too, well, Clinton-like a response. Where’s the outrage?
The British lost the war because of large force battles against the American and Army and our French allies. The guerilla fighting was a force multiplier but in the end it is always large force on force engaments that win.
Vietnam was lost by moronic military and political leadership. The Vietcong where no longer a factor after Tet. Our problem was the large numbers of NVA from the north and the discugsting way Johnson and Nixon tried to make the war all things to all people, like Bush is now doing.
History has proven again and again that victory is ground taken and held and enemy leadership over thrown. The key to winning in Iraq is the continued building of a Iraqi goverment. I feel that America does not have the heart to do it and in the end our loss in Iraq will be from our withdrawl from Iraq not from a foreign force defeating us militarly.
You can make the point that the guerillas will have won because of that and you would be partly right. They our proving our weakness as a public everyday but in the end they are very very beatable but we are not winners.
No–I don’t agree that there was “no significant” presence. Don’t know how the hell you got that from my response. I think the cite from the Intel Committee report is pretty succint–that the CIA believed there was a pre-war Al Qaeda safe haven in Iraq and that they had reasonable evidence to back up that assessment. And, I don’t think we know the full extent of what is going on in those other countries–and I think it should and hope that it can be kept secret.
“Vietnam was lost by moronic military and political leadership. The Vietcong where no longer a factor after Tet.” - Mr Tibbs
Our troops in Vietnam were not defeated by the VC, as you confirm. The Tet Offensive left the VC fully exposed to our superior fire power. It was the Hippie-yippies… don’t work, stay stoned, make love not war movement (probably the most decadent fad culture in US history) at home that did our boys in. Not only because of the war itself, but the reception after, all the Vietnam Vets including the ones that were killed or MIA were roundly shafted by our own citizens - …Critics.
In Iraq it’s not an option to let the critics get their way. Muslim based terrorism will strike again in the homeland and continues to be a global threat. The very last thing needed is a victory to the bad guys for them to gloat over, get their biggest and hugest win to date and gain an unparallelled source of Jihad inspiration and be able to set up a nation home base for more happy and bigger operations.
Them critics, they have all the blessings of democracy and freedom and yet they like to abuse that so much. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell whose side they’re on. I wonder if that scumbag American caught fighting side by side with the Taliban against his own Americans started off as a critic? For some poetic justice we should have wrapped him choc-a-bloc up in trinitrotoluene under that loose Arab garb he likes to dress in and sent him to an insurgence camp and remote detonated the ingrate. At least he would be useful for something. -
