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

[actsnoblemartin]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Gunny]

And that pretty much says it all.

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

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

 

[actsnoblemartin]

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]

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.

 

[Ninja]

Chechnya

 

[actsnoblemartin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.