What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Has guerilla warfare ever been defeated?, and if so, how was it defeated, and.....

actsnoblemartin

I love Andrea & April
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
412
Points
98
Location
La Mesa, CA
can it be defeated today in places like the border between afghanistan and pakistan, and iraq, or any other place you think of.

your thoughts please
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Sure it was. The US Army defeated guerilla warfare waged by American indians in the 1800s. They did it by ruthlessly pursuing the enemy, destroying his support system, and running him to ground until all were either dead or subdued.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Sure it was. The US Army defeated guerilla warfare waged by American indians in the 1800s. They did it by ruthlessly pursuing the enemy, destroying his support system, and running him to ground until all were either dead or subdued.

And that pretty much says it all.
 
OP
actsnoblemartin

actsnoblemartin

I love Andrea & April
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
412
Points
98
Location
La Mesa, CA
I agree with you 100%, liberals, and liberalistic thinking, doesnt want to win the war, it would rather feel good about itself instead. But trying to be on its high horse, but war really, when you think about has no morals.

We used to understand that sometimes we had to do whatever it took to attain the greater good.

Something lost in realtivist, secual progressive and politically correct postuirng nowadays.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted. People die in war, and it isn't just a movie. They don't come back for Part Deux.

If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.

Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war. They screw it up every time.
 
OP
actsnoblemartin

actsnoblemartin

I love Andrea & April
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
412
Points
98
Location
La Mesa, CA
exactly, and war to me, correct me if im wrong, seems like a job, your job is to kill the enemy, and win the war. Like any other job, if youre going to go into half ass, why go into it at all?

Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted. People die in war, and it isn't just a movie. They don't come back for Part Deux.

If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.

Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war. They screw it up every time.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
exactly, and war to me, correct me if im wrong, seems like a job, your job is to kill the enemy, and win the war. Like any other job, if youre going to go into half ass, why go into it at all?

You're oversimplifying. It's NEVER just a job to the ones actually squeezing the triggers and making someone all they're ever going to be.

There's no point to waging war if you are not prepared to do whatever it takes to win. An enemy willing to use more ruthless but effective tactics will win.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted. People die in war, and it isn't just a movie. They don't come back for Part Deux.

If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.

Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war. They screw it up every time.

Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, not a last resort. Had the administration actually done what needed doing in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be a shadow of its former self, if not an unpleasant memory. And you might want to tell Dubbyuh about politicians and politics not belonging in the waging of war. But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,474
Reaction score
12,376
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, not a last resort. Had the administration actually done what needed doing in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be a shadow of its former self, if not an unpleasant memory. And you might want to tell Dubbyuh about politicians and politics not belonging in the waging of war. But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

The Philippines, the Central American countries and Carribean in the 20/30's, the British in Malaysia. All were successful wars against "insurgents". And according to the left of today they were all wars of " Choice". Hell using the leftoids definitions, FDR drug us into WW2 by FORCING the Japanese to attack us because of our agregious foreign policy towards them. And on conventional wars, WW1 was a war of "choice" also. Korea? Another example of those damn Democrats and their piss poor Foreign Policy dragging us into a shooting war. If we use the excuses of today.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, not a last resort. Had the administration actually done what needed doing in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be a shadow of its former self, if not an unpleasant memory. And you might want to tell Dubbyuh about politicians and politics not belonging in the waging of war. But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

Was wondering how long before someone politicized the thread.

I'd tell ANY politician to his/her face they don't belong in the decision-making process of conducting war.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
The Philippines, the Central American countries and Carribean in the 20/30's, the British in Malaysia. All were successful wars against "insurgents". And according to the left of today they were all wars of " Choice". Hell using the leftoids definitions, FDR drug us into WW2 by FORCING the Japanese to attack us because of our agregious foreign policy towards them. And on conventional wars, WW1 was a war of "choice" also. Korea? Another example of those damn Democrats and their piss poor Foreign Policy dragging us into a shooting war. If we use the excuses of today.

Guns, relax. BP cannot help himself. From time to time he posts things he actually put thought into and it's alright. But, like most ABB types, until GWB has finished his second term there will be little if any rational thought, historical context, etc. Don't let the students you are trying to teach give you a stroke.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted. People die in war, and it isn't just a movie. They don't come back for Part Deux.

If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.

Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war. They screw it up every time.

Gunny - you must have read von Clausewitz surely. War is a political act. If it isn't a political act then what is it? Who declares war? It's not the general staff. No, the politicians declare war, they set the broad political objectives and task the military with achieving the military objectives set within those political objectives.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Gunny - you must have read von Clausewitz surely. War is a political act. If it isn't a political act then what is it? Who declares war? It's not the general staff. No, the politicians declare war, they set the broad political objectives and task the military with achieving the military objectives set within those political objectives.

Re-read my post carefully. I did not address the cause(s) of war -- only the conduct of war.
 

ReillyT

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
165
Points
48
Location
London, UK
can it be defeated today in places like the border between afghanistan and pakistan, and iraq, or any other place you think of.

your thoughts please

The French had success in Algeria for a while. They put down one insurgency, but it sprang up again after a couple of years.
 

ReillyT

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
165
Points
48
Location
London, UK
The South Africans and Rhodesians were also able to keep a lid on an insurgency for decades, but in doing so, they became essentially police states.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
106
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
Guerilla warfare is nothing new, Napolean saw alot of it with his french regime. Its just a sneaky way of trying to defeat a much larger, stronger and slower enemy. What else can you do besides draw them to your territory and surprise attack them in any unconvential way possible?

But they can be defeated, with our own guerilla type tactics like special forces.....navy seals......even smaller platoons of the army and marines. Ofcourse I dont think that would be possible without at least some aid from a civilian informant of some type.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Defeating a Guerrilla foe requires two things.

First you have to militarily stomp them into the ground.

Second you have to convince the locals that it is better to support you over them. This can be done by "winning hearts and minds" or by being more ferocious than the guerrilla force.

The second is a lot harder than the first.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Guerilla warfare is nothing new, Napolean saw alot of it with his french regime. Its just a sneaky way of trying to defeat a much larger, stronger and slower enemy. What else can you do besides draw them to your territory and surprise attack them in any unconvential way possible?

But they can be defeated, with our own guerilla type tactics like special forces.....navy seals......even smaller platoons of the army and marines. Ofcourse I dont think that would be possible without at least some aid from a civilian informant of some type.

Using guerilla tactics against guerillas is not necessarily a way to defeat terrorists. If identified, conventional tactics are easily just as effective.

Waging a guerilla war against terrorists might work, but I don't think you understand the tactics you are suggesting. It's waging a ruthless war of annihilation without regard to collateral damage nor offending someone's overly-sensitive morals.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top