Naxalites v. Corporate Shills

[Gfted1]

The wars between American Indians and European colonizers were conventional warfare, not irregular warfare.

 

Im willing to concede that point wrt South American Indians (Aztecs, Incas) but North American Indians were little more than small, loosely organized tribes (IE: similar to small guerilla forces). But I digress. I think guerilla wars are won or lost with LoF's statement: "To attack with brutality and strength against such a foe requires overwhelming and genocidal force...". A tit-for-tat war such as Vietnam was ripe for losing, as was the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. You will never be able to get rid of all resistance unless your willing to lay waste to the enemy in such a manner as to remove all hope of winning. That was done in the wars of yesteryear but todays conflicts, complete with live footage from imbedded journalists (whos dumb idea was that anyway?), are too worried about bad press to get the job done correctly.

[213374U]

Bad press?

 

I guess genocide means nothing to you, then? Because it would take an extermination campaign in an unprecedented scale (the nazis tried it in the occupied Soviet Union, they failed), to triumph in a guerrilla conflict by brute force alone.

 

After the invention of the rifle, just destroying the population centers of the enemy doesn't work anymore. You'd think that after roughly 200 years of successful guerrilla campaigns against regular armies, people would have caught that much on.

[Gfted1]

What do you consider a "sucessful" guerilla campaign? Not getting wiped out to the man? 10 mooks left over running around in the jungle?

[213374U]

Uh, no. A successful guerrilla campaign, such as the one that forced the retreat of the best land army in the world, and the political collapse of the regime that ran that show.

Edited April 7, 2010 by 213374U

[Gfted1]

I see.

 

Acting in concert, regular and irregular allied forces prevented Napoleon's marshals from subduing the rebellious Spanish provinces.[7]

 

But were getting off tangent trying to find specific examples of guerilla forces that have been sucessful and those that havent. My point is the 20 YEARS of civil war is insane and were the Indian army willing to make the tough choices the guerilla's would be wiped out. Its that lack of will that allows guerilla groups to survive and even flourish on occasion, not the fact that they are some kind of fighting force that just cant be beaten. Its a bunch of dirt farmers, not special forces.

[213374U]

I see.

 

Acting in concert, regular and irregular allied forces prevented Napoleon's marshals from subduing the rebellious Spanish provinces.[7]

The British were utterly powerless against the Napoleonic armies' might. It was the havoc caused by guerrillas that actually allowed them to do anything. In other words, the guerrilla war was the decisive factor. Good ol' Nappy also got a taste of that in Russia.

 

 

But were getting off tangent trying to find specific examples of guerilla forces that have been sucessful and those that havent. My point is the 20 YEARS of civil war is insane and were the Indian army willing to make the tough choices the guerilla's would be wiped out. Its that lack of will that allows guerilla groups to survive and even flourish on occasion, not the fact that they are some kind of fighting force that just cant be beaten. Its a bunch of dirt farmers, not special forces.

If you say so. You see, you could close the debate if you posted a single example in the last 200 years where the "tough choices" have been made and actually served the purpose you claim they would.

 

Only... there is no such example, while examples of guerrillas taking advantage of hit-and-run tactics, difficult but familiar terrain and the support from the local populations to cripple the operational capability of larger armies abound.

Edited April 7, 2010 by 213374U

[Gorgon]

Uh, no. A successful guerrilla campaign, such as the one that forced the retreat of the best land army in the world, and the political collapse of the regime that ran that show.

That was a good read.

[Gfted1]

If you say so. You see, you could close the debate if you posted a single example in the last 200 years where the "tough choices" have been made and actually served the purpose you claim they would.

 

Only... there is no such example, while examples of guerrillas taking advantage of hit-and-run tactics, difficult but familiar terrain and the support from the local populations to cripple the operational capability of larger armies abound.

 

You just going to keep whittling the timeline down till it fits your story? Since we now have to exclude the North American Indians to fit where you want this to go, how about the Palistinians? The Isrealis did what they had to do, kicked their teeth in and walled them up in a ghetto. Do you feel they are some kind of effective fighting force that will bring Israel to its knees? No, theyre an annoyance. I think your laboring under some kind of romanticized notion that the noble guerilla warrior will overcome all odds through sheer moxy, which of course is ridiculous.

[Gorgon]

Both in the case of the American Indians and the Palestinians there was a 'race war' element going on meaning that they could not effectively hide among the population, and I believe it has already been established that local support is crucial to a guerilla campaign.

[213374U]

You just going to keep whittling the timeline down till it fits your story? Since we now have to exclude the North American Indians to fit where you want this to go, how about the Palistinians? The Isrealis did what they had to do, kicked their teeth in and walled them up in a ghetto. Do you feel they are some kind of effective fighting force that will bring Israel to its knees? No, theyre an annoyance. I think your laboring under some kind of romanticized notion that the noble guerilla warrior will overcome all odds through sheer moxy, which wof course is ridiculous.

No, I'm going to keep whittling the timeline down until it fits my original statement that since the invention of the rifle, guerrilla tactics can't be defeated by brute strength. This is called "consistency".

 

And please, don't bother with the cheap strawmen. I didn't say that ALL guerrilla conflicts have resulted in the stated goals of those who engage in that sort of warfare being achieved; they do, however, have an almost infinite regenerative ability, and can keep on fighting virtually forever. The Palestinians are a perfect example of this, as are the Taliban.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pales...on_Israel,_2010

Edited April 7, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

To suggest that guerilla warfare cannot be defeated is:

 

1. Saying that we can kiss goodbye any form of government based on any system besides revolution. Endlessly, since any revolution must surely succumb to the next revolutionary guerilla.

 

2. That against all common sense fighting a guerilla war is the one thing it is impossible to fail at.

[Pidesco]

To suggest that guerilla warfare cannot be defeated is:

 

1. Saying that we can kiss goodbye any form of government based on any system besides revolution. Endlessly, since any revolution must surely succumb to the next revolutionary guerilla.

 

2. That against all common sense fighting a guerilla war is the one thing it is impossible to fail at.

 

 

It can be defeated, just not by conventional warfare, alone. Basically there are two options: full scale genocide or excellent counter intelligence work. The British used to be very good at the second option.

[Gorth]

To suggest that guerilla warfare cannot be defeated is:

 

1. Saying that we can kiss goodbye any form of government based on any system besides revolution. Endlessly, since any revolution must surely succumb to the next revolutionary guerilla.

 

2. That against all common sense fighting a guerilla war is the one thing it is impossible to fail at.

 

 

It can be defeated, just not by conventional warfare, alone. Basically there are two options: full scale genocide or excellent counter intelligence work. The British used to be very good at the second option.

Actually, they are quite good at the first one too. Look up info on the Boer war

[Pidesco]

Anyone is good at genocide with enough tech difference and unwavering dedication. Counter intelligence requires a lot of finesse, though.

[213374U]

To suggest that guerilla warfare cannot be defeated is

 

1. Saying that we can kiss goodbye any form of government based on any system besides revolution. Endlessly, since any revolution must surely succumb to the next revolutionary guerilla.

 

2. That against all common sense fighting a guerilla war is the one thing it is impossible to fail at.

3. A strawman. But thanks for trying.

 

Against guerrillas, diplomacy and intelligence work are going to be the most effective weapons. I thought you were pretty well informed on current events in Afghanistan. How else do you justify the failure of international conventional military operations in what's nearing a decade of war against "dirt farmers", and the shift to drone-executed assassinations and increasing tendency to allow local forces to bear the brunt of the conflict?

Edited April 8, 2010 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

So, in the area where the Naxalites operate, what has happened there lately? Did the government take land from the local farmers? Did the government neglect to build roads? What?

[Walsingham]

To suggest that guerilla warfare cannot be defeated is

 

1. Saying that we can kiss goodbye any form of government based on any system besides revolution. Endlessly, since any revolution must surely succumb to the next revolutionary guerilla.

 

2. That against all common sense fighting a guerilla war is the one thing it is impossible to fail at.

3. A strawman. But thanks for trying.

 

Against guerrillas, diplomacy and intelligence work are going to be the most effective weapons. I thought you were pretty well informed on current events in Afghanistan. How else do you justify the failure of international conventional military operations in what's nearing a decade of war against "dirt farmers", and the shift to drone-executed assassinations and increasing tendency to allow local forces to bear the brunt of the conflict?

 

Actually I'm a little surprised that given the disparity in our views you would so effortlessly assume you have the better information! When you wrote that you didn't feel the teensiest bit overblown? At all? Never mind.

 

Although I am the first to say that our campaign in Afghan has been mismanaged in terms of linking security to development, it is utter balls to say that we are failing with conventional forces. The very simplest comparison of casualties between our own troops and the Soviet Afghan experience [i always think that term makes it sound like a funfair ride] gives the lie to that. The use of drone attacks is an addendum to conventional forces and is not even remotely a replacement except perhaps in the minds of Washington theorists, the fevered dreams of the drone manufacturers.

 

Counter-insurgency is like building a fire. You need three things, the absence of any one of which will render the other two pointless. You need security, you need economic development, and you need a political idea to energise the two (much like the spark to ignite a fire in the original analogy). Gen. Frank Kitson, veteran of Kenya, Malaya, Oman, Cyprus and Northern Ireland said that and I know of no reason to disagree with him. My point being that it is nonsensical to point at conventional force alone and blame it for the failure when it is the concert as a whole which is failing.

[213374U]

Actually I'm a little surprised that given the disparity in our views you would so effortlessly assume you have the better information! When you wrote that you didn't feel the teensiest bit overblown? At all? Never mind.

Right, right. How do I ever dare assume I can get even a rough picture of the goings-on in Afghanistan, when we have the great Walsingham here, to make everything clear... through a wealth of subtle insinuations and unverifiable personal assurances of experience. At BOTH the field squad AND warroom staff meeting levels.

 

And they say I'm conceited.

 

I go by what I read here and there, I apologize for that. I mean, this guy, Gen. McChrystal, is obviously just a chump and doesn't know what he's talking about, right? Because you say so?

 

But yeah, I guess that, after 8+ years of Coalition operations throughout the country, things are going real well. And, heh, better not discuss Pakistan.

 

If that was an attempt to make me sleep better tonight man, you're going to have to do better.

[Hurlshort]

Not to mention the main goal in Afghanistan is to eventually develop local forces to handle all conflicts. We can definitely debate how effective that has been, but given the costs involved in maintaining a military presence, it is hard to imagine a better option.

[Walsingham]

To suggest that guerilla warfare cannot be defeated is

 

1. Saying that we can kiss goodbye any form of government based on any system besides revolution. Endlessly, since any revolution must surely succumb to the next revolutionary guerilla.

 

2. That against all common sense fighting a guerilla war is the one thing it is impossible to fail at.

3. A strawman. But thanks for trying.

 

 

I don't know who or what pissed in your beer but if you want to bring up which one of us is the more of a condescending ****wit - and I concede there is a contest - I think your above comment sums it up.

 

_I_ didn't kick this off claiming to be the authorty. YOU did. I just thought that you could stand to be reminded that your casual browsing of the internet doesn't give you sole authority. I don't claim for a minute to be one on my own.

[Calax]

Just gonna point out that in the original post, the quote only makes mention of the fact that members of the governments security forces being attacked. So it's not like the guerrillas are posting bombs inside subways or anything.

 

That said, I think that for the most part a guerrilla war requires that one side be winning popular support. In Afganistan the US linked it's popularity to the popularity of Karzai (or however you spell it), and thus when it turned out the guy was corrupt as hell and his brother was the biggest opium producer in the country, we kinda lost the popular support in the country.

 

Probably the best thing we could have done to warn off enemies would have been to basically to make an object lesson of the taliban, in a unique style. I suppose it would basically be honest to god state terrorism, but go in, wipe out most of the government, then exit swiftly, and point to the ensuing chaos as a sort of "Yeah, you screw with us, that's what'll happen." Totally A-moral, and the equivalent of beating up a homeless guy then leaving him to bleed out, but it does make a point and slam it home with a couple of exclamation points.

[213374U]

I don't know who or what pissed in your beer but if you want to bring up which one of us is the more of a condescending ****wit - and I concede there is a contest - I think your above comment sums it up.

 

_I_ didn't kick this off claiming to be the authorty. YOU did. I just thought that you could stand to be reminded that your casual browsing of the internet doesn't give you sole authority. I don't claim for a minute to be one on my own.

Oh, really? Then I suggest you review the thread, because nobody claimed that guerrilla warfare can't be defeated. You assumed "somebody" had said that (the closest to that being actually my stance), and proceeded to pontificate on how absurd this idea is. I agree, the idea is absurd -- that may be why nobody is actually saying that. Hence, your straw man.

 

And where did I claim to be an expert on anything...? I post links when I think that just my saying something doesn't carry enough weight (almost always) or when somebody calls BS. Want to discuss any of them? I did notice that you didn't bother. Sorry if you feel that whatever comes up by "casually browsing the internet" isn't up to your high standards... but I think it beats expecting that hinting that you are some sort of undercover generalfeldmarschall will leave folks gasping in awe.

Edited April 8, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I must have misread pages 2 and 3 then, because it seemed as if there was this big debate between you and Gfted1 to the effect that guerrilla war couldn't be countered by field forces without genocide, and that Afghan proved this. I'll admit that on rereading I got it wrong. Although I also missed your alarming assertion that the Spanish army drove the French out of Spain, according to some master plan, and discounting the sacrifice of British forces in the event. I'm NOT any sort of expert on Napoleonic warfare, but that seems more than a little ungrateful.

 

 

~~

 

I don't lay down credentials because

 

a) It shouldn't make a massive difference

b) I KNOW I talk balls occasionally and I enjoy not being held to it professionally and academically. It's fun.

 

My objection wasn't that you didn't believe me despite what is I think a pretty good record of talking with a little authority, but that you acted like YOU were the infallible expert. Hardly for the first time.

[213374U]

1) I stand by my original statement that conventional forces alone aren't enough to completely defeat guerrilla warfare, without breaking the laws of war one way or another, generally by incurring in genocide and invariably targeting non-combatants. There's a wealth of historical examples to support this, too. In this regard, the Taliban show how, despite being in front of a multinational coalition that includes what is without a doubt the best military in the world, force alone (and what could possibly be construed as war crimes) haven't done nearly enough. You may think we are "winning", but I'm led to believe otherwise by what I've read (including, but not limited to, the links I posted).

 

2) The Napoleonic campaigns are quite vast in scope, and we could perhaps discuss them in a different thread altogether. What I was taught however, is that Napoleon's field armies had been generally undefeated (lol Russia) up until the Peninsular War... and that British successes in Spain and Portugal were made possible thanks in large part to the crippling effects that irregulars had on French forces. Then again, it's perfectly possible that what I was taught overinflated the importance action of guerrillas in detriment of British accomplishments... but "guerrilla" is a Spanish loanword, after all.

 

On whether it's "ungrateful" to disparage British aid... that would require me to examine an alternate historical scenario where Spain had been more "frenchified". I'm not too impressed by our last 200 years of history, so let's not get too deep into that. And let's not forget that the British Empire seldom did anything out of the kindness of HM's heart.

 

3) I don't give a flying **** about who you are IRL. On the internet, I try to treat everyone (roughly) equally, but I expect people making what appear to be somewhat serious claims to provide at least a modicum of supporting evidence. So don't take it as a personal offense if I don't take your word as gospel... because I wouldn't expect you of all people to do the same with my posts.

 

And again, I'd like you tell me where I've stated or insinuated that I'm an authority on anything. You may not be too fond of my posting style, but I never dodge, and am not afraid to admit I'm wrong -- for me it's not my ego on the line, and the sole notion brings a smile to my face. If you got the impression that I think I'm infallible... well, I can't really help you with that. Think about it: the only reason I keep participating in these boards is because I never stop learning things from people here. Take that as you will.

 

4) Yay, another e-fisticuffs. I've lost count now. You'd think that after the first few dozens, I would have learnt that it's actually not worth it. Sigh.

Edited April 10, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

If that was an apology I accept it. If it wasn't an apology I admit I have to admire your spirit.

 

~~

 

To return to the point in hand, the question of whether we are winning or losing is a complex one. If I was excessively bullish in tone it is because there are two ways we can lose this war. the one is the obvious way of taking excessive casualties in the field - by which I mean so many men that our economic and social infrasturcutre is devastated. Of this there seems little danger. The other is that we are persuaded by doomsayers that we cannot win and quit. Of this there seems a very great danger, repeated to me personally by officers, NCOs, and soldiers who have recently left the forces. I cannot cite these sources for obvious reasons, and can only suggest you hunt some up for yourself. It's rarely an unpleasant experience.

 

Being stuck in a chair, and facing removal from the Army I am - I think understandably - keen to do whatever I can. This includes correcting misapprehensions which could lead to defeat. Obviously I did a lousy job since I merely pissed you off! if that is an apology I hope you will accept it.

 

However, I DO maintain that your thesis is incorrect. Malaysia and Northern Ireland are evidence that the British Army can win a counter-insurgency campaign _as part of the tripartite solution I already described_. That is security, development, and political spark. For a full description, read Low Intensity Operations, by Frank Kitson. Although i should stress that teh bok is quite old and doesn't go the whole hog.

 

Having said that, the insurgent has a far far easier time of it, and that is why they frequently succeed. If by succeed one means destroy their own country and debase their own integrity by perpetration of murder and atrocity on their own people.