Best way to fight an insurgency

To say an interventionist insurgent war is unwinnable is an overstatement, even advocates on the strength of insurgencies will admit that any insurgency can be defeated. Britain supressed Malaya 1948-1960, America defeated the Philippines 1899-1902, Britain defeated the Boers 1899-1902 etc etc.

Originally posted by Cryptic 1.) The Union Army secures major towns and roadways by using massed numbers and mass fire power.  This slowly deprives lightly armed Bushwackers freedom of movement etc.   2.)  Irregular,  Pro Union Jay Hawker militias roam rural areas in small groups on vengeance missions.   They attack Bushwackers and their civilian supporters in their safe areas by using many of the same dirty tactics that the Bushwackers use.   Naturally, Union press only reports Bushwacker atrocitities.   Jayhawker atrocities are also "deniable" because they are not commited by Union Army.   Bushwackers and their supporters are then crushed by diplomacy, regular forces and irregular forces.  Increasingly residual resistance lingers for years, but the mass Bushwacker resistance movement is defeated in a relatively short time (two-three years).

Edited by Styrbiorn - 06-Mar-2008 at 07:53

Interesting fact about the Civil War: a subordinate had told Lee that atleast 10,000 Confederate soldiers had volunteered to continue the war against the Union using guerrilla tactics. Lee, obviously, didn't consider it and prevented his soldiers from doing so themselves.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 I have made this point in other threads before:  Interventionist insurgent wars are unwinnable....Algeria, Viet Nam, Afghanistan (USSR version), and perhaps Iraq which is as yet undecided.   Domestic insurgencies are a different matter:  The IRA in Ireland; the communists in Greece, the dim-witted "Red Brigades" in Germany and Italy; the insurgent movements in Latin America (so thoroughly squashed in Brazil, Chile and Argentina).  Cuba, an island without contiguous access to other geographies, and thus no real effect, may be an exception.   The best way to avoid insurgent wars is to not get into them.

Hello Jonathan

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Originally posted by Sparten Originally posted by pikeshot1600 I have made this point in other threads before:  Interventionist insurgent wars are unwinnable....Algeria, Viet Nam, Afghanistan (USSR version), and perhaps Iraq which is as yet undecided.   Domestic insurgencies are a different matter:  The IRA in Ireland; the communists in Greece, the dim-witted "Red Brigades" in Germany and Italy; the insurgent movements in Latin America (so thoroughly squashed in Brazil, Chile and Argentina).  Cuba, an island without contiguous access to other geographies, and thus no real effect, may be an exception.   The best way to avoid insurgent wars is to not get into them.         Thats what I have always believed. War is a political action at its core, and in an interventionist insurgency, the political fall out will be greater. In a domestic insurgency usually, esp if the insurgency is secessionist in nature, people will support it more and allow "what has to be done". In Nigeria, the Bafira rebellion, the Nigerians showed the insurhents and the locals that come hell or high water they would not let their country get broken up, which destroyed the civilian support.   But interventionist insurgencies HAVE been defeated. The Soviets defeated every guerrilla movement after taking over their countries. The Americans defeated the Filipinos. The British effective policed the Middle East after World War I. Interventionist insurgencies are definitely harder to defeat but to say they're invincible is ridiculous.

What I do know is that overt control is impossible it has failed so many times in history.

Some papers on the topic of counter-insurgency imply the use of special forces but by this they actually mean units acting as guerrillas that don't resemble normal special forces at all. They were used with some minor success in Vietnam but more so in Malaya where they'd hide and ambush guerrillas rather ironically.

Ultimately what it comes down to is restricting the access to resources (material as well as recruits) of the insurgents while being willing to fight for an extended period and suffer losses as the 'occupying' force.  The 'brutality' approach can be counterproductive in that regard, as it can produce more recruits for the insurgency.  While only a small percentage of the local population may be willing to fight for a 'cause', once they are faced with 'no choice' - i.e. will be killed by the occupying forces whether or not they fight - then a much larger percentage will fight.  The ultimate extreme of that philosophy ends up being 'removal' or 'extermination' of the local population.  That then cycles around to the reason for the occupying forces to be there in the first place.  If the issue is control or ownship of the territory itself, and if they are willing / able to entirely dispense with 'conventional' morality, then it can work.  Otherwise, it is ultimately a self-defeating strategy.