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

[Gunny]

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.

We don't seem to have ever been very good at the second.

 

[pegwinn]

We don't seem to have ever been very good at the second.

We really suck at the being more ferocious part at times. Problem with hearts and minds is that it is a bribe, and a recurring one. Miss one payment......

 

[Diuretic]

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

Point taken. However while I agree that in general the conduct of war is best left to the military I still argue that there is political oversight and, if necessary, direction, required. War is imbued with politics. I'm not referring to the day to day or even the strategic carrying out of war, I'm more focused on questions such as, "should we bomb Laos?" Militarily it makes sense to attack your opponent's supply lines but bombing a neutral country to achieve that aim is a political issue.

 

[Diuretic]

If the insurgency arises from the people who are being subjugated and the people support the insurgency then the attempts to defeat the insurgency will fail. If an alien force is trying to support a puppet regime that has no support among the locals then it will fail. The Soviet Union couldn't maintain the puppet government in Afghanistan and had to withdraw and of course the government fell. Same in South Vietnam. I would think one of the main reasons that the British and Commonwealth forces were reasonably successful in Malaya was that the people weren't entirely convinced that the Communist insurgents would be good for them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If the insurgency arises from the people who are being subjugated and the people support the insurgency then the attempts to defeat the insurgency will fail. If an alien force is trying to support a puppet regime that has no support among the locals then it will fail. The Soviet Union couldn't maintain the puppet government in Afghanistan and had to withdraw and of course the government fell. Same in South Vietnam. I would think one of the main reasons that the British and Commonwealth forces were reasonably successful in Malaya was that the people weren't entirely convinced that the Communist insurgents would be good for them.

South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurgency. They were invaded by North Vietnam with 25 Divisions and beaten by external force. TET 68 destroyed the so called insurgency, after that disaster the North had to " import" insurgents from the ranks of the North Vietnemese army.

 

[Diuretic]

South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurgency. They were invaded by North Vietnam with 25 Divisions and beaten by external force. TET 68 destroyed the so called insurgency, after that disaster the North had to " import" insurgents from the ranks of the North Vietnemese army.

What was the motivation of the North Vietnamese forces and the Viet Cong?

How did Ho Chi Minh characterise it? Ho, as we know, fought for the liberation of his country from the French after WWII. He defined his country differently from the colonial powers. That was my point.

What was the extent of support in ordinary South Vietnamese for the regimes of Diem and later Thieu? Diem and Thieu were corrupt and had very little popular support. If they had support from the people then the VC and the forces of the North would never have overcome the forces holding South Vietnam.

Yes I remember reading about/watching news reports about the Tet Offensive in 1968. From memory it was situated around Hue? Yes, it was a victory for conventional military forces. And in the end the insurgents won.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What was the motivation of the North Vietnamese forces and the Viet Cong?

How did Ho Chi Minh characterise it? Ho, as we know, fought for the liberation of his country from the French after WWII. He defined his country differently from the colonial powers. That was my point.

What was the extent of support in ordinary South Vietnamese for the regimes of Diem and later Thieu? Diem and Thieu were corrupt and had very little popular support. If they had support from the people then the VC and the forces of the North would never have overcome the forces holding South Vietnam.

Yes I remember reading about/watching news reports about the Tet Offensive in 1968. From memory it was situated around Hue? Yes, it was a victory for conventional military forces. And in the end the insurgents won.

Your history is lacking. TET was a rising across the entire south. The entire infrastructure and manpower of the Souths insurgents ceased to exist in any meaningful way after that year. Perhaps you would care to research what the North Vietnemese had to say about the results of TET?

North Viet Nam was a seperate country, claiming its armed forces were insurgents is ludicrous on its face. South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against an army twice its size. They lost , not because they didn't fight, but because they had no spare parts, no fuel and no extra ammo for their equipment. Why? Because the democrats in the US Congress cut them off the year before.

You really should learn to research facts rather than go with " folk lore".

 

[Diuretic]

Your history is lacking. TET was a rising across the entire south. The entire infrastructure and manpower of the Souths insurgents ceased to exist in any meaningful way after that year. Perhaps you would care to research what the North Vietnemese had to say about the results of TET?

North Viet Nam was a seperate country, claiming its armed forces were insurgents is ludicrous on its face. South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against an army twice its size. They lost , not because they didn't fight, but because they had no spare parts, no fuel and no extra ammo for their equipment. Why? Because the democrats in the US Congress cut them off the year before.

You really should learn to research facts rather than go with " folk lore".

It's not my history that's lacking, it's my bloody memory

Historically - and this is the position I'm taking to try and make the point - Indo-China has been in turmoil for hundreds and hundreds of years. The Chinese and Vietnamese (I'll use that term for convenience) had been at it well before the French turned up. Ho - now I'm going from memory of my reading about him so this could go anywhere - was a patriot who wanted the Japanese out of his country and then the French.

My point is that Ho regarded South Vietnam as being part of his country. From his perspective and that of his colleagues it wasn't an invasion (although in the eyes of the international community outside of China and the Soviet Union it was). What drove them was a sense of liberation from colonial and then imperialist powers.

This thread is about motivation, about why guerilla insurgencies are difficult for conventional forces to deal with. Part of the problem has to do with the sheer difficulty of fighting guerilla forces. Conventional forces - as we know - find it difficult to fight guerillas for various reasons. But even when guerilla tactics are used against guerillas I'm not sure if it works. I remember reading many years ago about the US Army Special Forces working with the Montagnard people in Vietnam. I don't know if it was very successful but it was an example of fighting fire with fire I suppose.

There are some examples of situations where insurgents may have not been as successful as they woudl have hoped. The French Resistance in WWII fought the Vichy government and the German occupiers both. Despite much heroism shown by the resistance I'm not sure if they were able to make a dent on the Vichy and Germans. If the D-Day Invasion hadn't been such a stunning success (or if it had never happened or if Operation Sea Lion had been successful itself) I wonder if the resistance would have eventually faded when the light of defiance had faded. Of course the Vichy and German forces were in a good position to defeat the resistance and, as we know, they were absolutely ruthless.

 

[CSM]

It's not my history that's lack, it's my bloody memory

Historically - and this is the position I'm taking to try and make the point - Indo-China has been in turmoil for hundreds and hundreds of years. The Chinese and Vietnamese (I'll use that term for convenience) had been at it well before the French turned up. Ho - now I'm going from memory of my reading about him so this could go anywhere - was a patriot who wanted the Japanese out of his country and then the French.

My point is that Ho regarded South Vietnam as being part of his country. From his perspective and that of his colleagues it wasn't an invasion (although in the eyes of the international community outside of China and the Soviet Union it was). What drove them was a sense of liberation from colonial and then imperialist powers.

This thread is about motivation, about why guerilla insurgencies are difficult for conventional forces to deal with. Part of the problem has to do with the sheer difficulty of fighting guerilla forces. Conventional forces - as we know - find it difficult to fight guerillas for various reasons. But even when guerilla tactics are used against guerillas I'm not sure if it works. I remember reading many years ago about the US Army Special Forces working with the Montagnard people in Vietnam. I don't know if it was very successful but it was an example of fighting fire with fire I suppose.

There are some examples of situations where insurgents may have not been as successful as they woudl have hoped. The French Resistance in WWII fought the Vichy government and the German occupiers both. Despite much heroism shown by the resistance I'm not sure if they were able to make a dent on the Vichy and Germans. If the D-Day Invasion hadn't been such a stunning success (or if it had never happened or if Operation Sea Lion had been successful itself) I wonder if the resistance would have eventually faded when the light of defiance had faded. Of course the Vichy and German forces were in a good position to defeat the resistance and, as we know, they were absolutely ruthless.

Actually, motivation and tactics are two very different things though related. Your last sentence says it all. Ruthlessness is the very heart of the matter. Currently, Islamic extremists are willing to be as ruthless as necessary to win. We are not. For example, a few well placed nukes would most certainly go a long way in curtailing the terrorists (training camps, safe houses, etc.) even to the point of bombing safe areas in certain border regions. There are other less extreme measures but you get the idea. The terrorists for their part are willing to bomb mosques, schools, etc. and really don't care about "collateral damage". In fact, for them, the more they kill the happier they are.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, motivation and tactics are two very different things though related. Your last sentence says it all. Ruthlessness is the very heart of the matter. Currently, Islamic extremists are willing to be as ruthless as necessary to win. We are not. For example, a few well placed nukes would most certainly go a long way in curtailing the terrorists (training camps, safe houses, etc.) even to the point of bombing safe areas in certain border regions. There are other less extreme measures but you get the idea. The terrorists for their part are willing to bomb mosques, schools, etc. and really don't care about "collateral damage". In fact, for them, the more they kill the happier they are.

Yes, the Islamicists know that there are many constraints on their opponents. They also know that they only have to wait out everyone to achieve their objectives which makes it extremely difficult for their opponents.

The Nazis were ruthless and it worked for them. Lidice might ring a bell. They pulled similar atrocities in Greece, I think in Crete they murdered all the men in a village as reprisal. Of course in the end they were defeated by convention military forces and punished for their transgressions.

 

[CSM]

Yes, the Islamicists know that there are many constraints on their opponents. They also know that they only have to wait out everyone to achieve their objectives which makes it extremely difficult for their opponents.

The Nazis were ruthless and it worked for them. Lidice might ring a bell. They pulled similar atrocities in Greece, I think in Crete they murdered all the men in a village as reprisal. Of course in the end they were defeated by convention military forces and punished for their transgressions.

UNless they screw up really badly, they will win because of those constraints. If they push the envelope too far however, all scruples will disappear and the terrorists may find themselves in dire straits. What the limit is, remains to be seen.

I suspect they have learned it is far easier and more beneficial to keep the current sentiment among the US populace (which is to their advantage) by NOT attacking the US. The 911 event came very close to unifying the US which nearly resulted in the destruction of the terrorists themselves.

 

[Edward]

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.

A politician started this war and it was a war that we did not need to fight and one that was a choice based on a specific ideology. It has resulted in the deaths of many innocent Americans and yet so many people attempt to justify the war as being somehow noble when in reality it is the insane action of insane men. Time and again Democrats have tried to focus on winning in Afghanistan and on eliminating Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda but these insane morons have decided to play their cards in Iraq thinking that the Iraq war would stabilize the Middle East when in fact it has done nothing of the sort. The question we should continue to ask is: How many more Americans must die because of the opinion of George W. Bush and those who agree with him? Will it be 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, or a 100,000? Of course, even one more death is one to many when it is the result of a war of choice.

 

[Edward]

Point taken. However while I agree that in general the conduct of war is best left to the military I still argue that there is political oversight and, if necessary, direction, required. War is imbued with politics. I'm not referring to the day to day or even the strategic carrying out of war, I'm more focused on questions such as, "should we bomb Laos?" Militarily it makes sense to attack your opponent's supply lines but bombing a neutral country to achieve that aim is a political issue.

How a war is conducted is a political question because it is a question of how our men and women in uniform will be used to achieve the political end we desire. They don't get to question the commands of their officers or those over them in the military and their only recourse is through their member of Congress and that is why every action taken by the military of major concern should be overseen by the Congress who is the lawful body for the conduct of a war. The President is merely the Commander in Chief and he can only direct the day to day operations of the military but the policy making of a war rests solely with the legislative body. I just wish Bush had taken the time to read the Constitution but I doubt he ha the ability to understand what it says.

 

[CSM]

How a war is conducted is a political question because it is a question of how our men and women in uniform will be used to achieve the political end we desire. They don't get to question the commands of their officers or those over them in the military and their only recourse is through their member of Congress and that is why every action taken by the military of major concern should be overseen by the Congress who is the lawful body for the conduct of a war. The President is merely the Commander in Chief and he can only direct the day to day operations of the military but the policy making of a war rests solely with the legislative body. I just wish Bush had taken the time to read the Constitution but I doubt he ha the ability to understand what it says.

Don't know much about the military, do you.

 

[Edward]

Actually, motivation and tactics are two very different things though related. Your last sentence says it all. Ruthlessness is the very heart of the matter. Currently, Islamic extremists are willing to be as ruthless as necessary to win. We are not. For example, a few well placed nukes would most certainly go a long way in curtailing the terrorists (training camps, safe houses, etc.) even to the point of bombing safe areas in certain border regions. There are other less extreme measures but you get the idea. The terrorists for their part are willing to bomb mosques, schools, etc. and really don't care about "collateral damage". In fact, for them, the more they kill the happier they are.

We have shown just how willing we are to win wars and how willing we are to start them so I doubt very much that anything any liberal can say will stop the butcher and traitor in the White House from doing whatever the hell he wants to do since he thinks he is above the American people and above the Congress. The difference between the terrorists and us is that their acts of terror are more blatant while we try to disguise ours through military logic and claim to fight for something good and noble. The only real conclusion Americans should draw is that the war is actually a war against conservatism whether in America or in the Middle East. That the evil of people like Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush should not be tolerated and that we can and should overcome them and what they represent if we are ever going to find common ground and build a peaceful society where idiots like you are told to shut up and sit down. There will always be traitors, tyrants and hatemongers and it is up to good people everywhere to oppose them, to fight them and to do what is necessary to defeat them. We must eliminate al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and then we must deal with the problem of conservatism in this country as well once we defeat it over there because if we do not the problem will raise its ugly head in the future.

 

[CSM]

We have shown just how willing we are to win wars and how willing we are to start them so I doubt very much that anything any liberal can say will stop the butcher and traitor in the White House from doing whatever the hell he wants to do since he thinks he is above the American people and above the Congress. The difference between the terrorists and us is that their acts of terror are more blatant while we try to disguise ours through military logic and claim to fight for something good and noble. The only real conclusion Americans should draw is that the war is actually a war against conservatism whether in America or in the Middle East. That the evil of people like Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush should not be tolerated and that we can and should overcome them and what they represent if we are ever going to find common ground and build a peaceful society where idiots like you are told to shut up and sit down. There will always be traitors, tyrants and hatemongers and it is up to good people everywhere to oppose them, to fight them and to do what is necessary to defeat them. We must eliminate al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and then we must deal with the problem of conservatism in this country as well once we defeat it over there because if we do not the problem will raise its ugly head in the future.

Booooooring....

 

[Edward]

Don't know much about the military, do you.

I don't claim to know much about the military and I am quite proud of the fact that I do not know much about an organization that subverts the democratic process and seeks to undermine the American ideals that our forefathers fought for. The only thing I need to know is what I see with my own eyes Yes, I am against a standing Army and I agree with our founding fathers on that much and I condemn those motherfuckers like you who support a standing army. When and if the people cease to direct the affairs of war is the day we cease to be a free people. It is bad enough that much of our freedom has already been lost but it is pathetic that we have a military empire that spans the globe with military installations in the majority of countries around the world because the truth is that this is what the Roman Empire did and it is what we are now witnessing taking place in this country and if we become as foolish as the Roman Republic and allow the same to happen then it is our own damn fault.

 

[Edward]

Booooooring....

Boooring says the ******* tryant who enters the ******* voting booth and talks out of his ass on a mesage board and who supports tryanny just like his members of Parliment. I CLAP MY HANDS FOR YOU YOU RED COAT PIECE OF SHIT.

 

[CSM]

I don't claim to know much about the military and I am quite proud of the fact that I do not know much about an organization that subverts the democratic process and seeks to undermine the American ideals that our forefathers fought for. The only thing I need to know is what I see with my own eyes Yes, I am against a standing Army and I agree with our founding fathers on that much and I condemn those motherfuckers like you who support a standing army. When and if the people cease to direct the affairs of war is the day we cease to be a free people. It is bad enough that much of our freedom has already been lost but it is pathetic that we have a military empire that spans the globe with military installations in the majority of countries around the world because the truth is that this is what the Roman Empire did and it is what we are now witnessing taking place in this country and if we become as foolish as the Roman Republic and allow the same to happen then it is our own damn fault.

Just who did all the fighting for our forefathers, asshole?

What the hell do your posts have to do with the original topic of this thread?

You are just hijacking what would otherwise have been an intelligent discussion.

 

[CSM]

Boooring says the ******* tryant who enters the ******* voting booth and talks out of his ass on a mesage board and who supports tryanny just like his members of Parliment. I CLAP MY HANDS FOR YOU YOU RED COAT PIECE OF SHIT.

Thanks for the applause. You confirm my beliefs.