Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

State vs guerillas and terrorism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: State vs guerillas and terrorism
    Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 02:24
They are spoiling the party everywhere. But they themselves get to party.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 12:11
And it is really sad that Al Qaeda has spoiled the party...

Come back among us Al Qaeda and the ubiquitous "foreign terrorists" are far from being responsible from all or even most of the attacks against the civilians and use so called terror tactics.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Tipu Sultan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 28-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 271
  Quote Tipu Sultan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 21:31
hey i got  a presentation to do on guerrilla warfare very soon in my university and i am well prepared for it.
i will use the example of iraq where current guerrilla fighting is going on especially in the anbar proviance and bagahad. what is sad is that terrorists of al qaida have come and joined the fighting with the guerrillas of iraq and these qaida attack civilians and use terror tactics.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 01:03
You want to outsource destruction. Good Business tactics.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 23:38
Originally posted by Cryptic

Since truly flattening Anbar Province is not a option.... what does one do next Cry?
 
Build up an Iraqi military capable of doing all the flattening.  They're probably much better suited to this than the US army, under Saddam, they had to deal with a lot of Kurdish insurgents, and their standard tactic (surprise, surprise) was to surround a hostile town and flatten it with airstrikes, helo strikes, artillery, and tank fire, then have infantry clear out the rubble.
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 16:22

 

Maharrbal,

Good examples Clap.  I guess there are more istances of "Goliath" winning than I thought. 

Though I think the Wiemar republic only "defeated" the Communists and NAZI affiliated groups because both combatants decided to mainly focus on winning the political process rather than defeating the Wiemar government (and each other) by force.  

Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 13:53
Actually, there are a few others:

Spain and France against Marocan guerilla in the Rif War of  1920-1921.
The Mahdi War of ... hum... the 1920's (?)
The Weimar Rep against various uprisings.
Nigerian agaisnt Rebels in 1968
Congo against Katanga
MPLA against UNITA (helped by Executive Outcomes)
Sierra Leone govt against RUF rebels (Helped by Executive Outcomes)
And so on... Papua Guinea, Pigs Bay, HELLAS in Greece, Islamist in Algeria, Egypt and other places...
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 02:12
It also depends on the backers of the insurgency. For ex. Hizbolla without the support of a strong Iran would be nowhere.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 22:18
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Antipartisan wars are rarely sucessful. In the last hundred years I cannot think of more than 10 victories of Goliat.
 
I cant even think of 10 Goliath victories where Goliath was facing a truly determined insurgency.
 
The only ones that I can think of are....
1.  United Kingdom defeating Malaysian Communists
2.  Turkey defeating or at least nueteralizing Kurdish rebels
3.  United Kingdom defeated Boers  (partially through ethnic cleansing of all Boer civilians from guerilla areas)
 
Nazi Germany may have nuetralized /  defeated several insurgencies but only by committing large scale atrocities against the civilian population.
El Salvadoran and Guatemalan  leftists were never defeated but accepted cease fires and a role in the government.
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 20:58
Antipartisan wars are rarely sucessful. In the last hundred years I cannot think of more than 10 victories of Goliat.

But maybe in Irak the civil war will be a chance as a sort of front may arize allowing the US to use all their might while they cannot do it now as there is virtually no enemies.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 17:46
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Sparten is right, the only way out is what he says flattening the area ocuupied by active & more importantly passive terrorists. 
 
 
Here is link to an article describing a report by a U.S. Marine Colonel.  The report describes Anbar province as a politically lost cause.  Four years of a  "heart and mind campaign" combined with the killing a fair number of insurgents / terrorists and their leaders has not workedShocked.
 
Since truly flattening Anbar Province is not a option.... what does one do next Cry?
 
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 26-Sep-2006 at 17:51
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 00:53
Sparten is right, the only way out is what he says flattening the area ocuupied by active & more importantly passive terrorists.  Actions like the British one may succeed in places like malay, but not against most of today's terrorists. And off course the other option is to bow down to their demands & let them blackmail you, if you like to be peaceful.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 18:37
Sparten hits the nail on the head.  From what I've seen, there are two very different ways to win a counterinsurgency, but anything in the middle won't work.
 
One can do what the British did and treat it as a large police action with military support and try to win the hearts and minds of the people like they did in Malaya, or there is always the Genghis Khan option of beheading anyone who resists in the slightest way.  Both must deprive the guerrillas of the support of the people.  One does this by making the people unwilling to help the guerrillas, or merely killing them so they can't help them.  I read about two French commanders in Morocco who were dealing with counterinsurgencies in neighboring provinces.  One of them protected the people who collaborated and set up things such as a subsidized market to get their help, and the other guy massacred every village that resisted.  Apparently there was even one time when the women and children of a village hid in a nearby cave and he started a fire at the mouth of it and asphyxiated all of them.  Yet, by these two different approaches, they were both able to pacify their provinces.
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Desimir View Drop Down
Earl
Earl

Suspended

Joined: 13-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote Desimir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 09:11
This is a massacre.There is no solution of iraqi problem.Thats why iraq will be arena for terrorist acts for many years.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 09:05
The problem is simple The US can win the war, but to do so they will have o undertake actions which will have very disaterous consequences. Such as flattening the Sunni triangle.
Back to Top
Desimir View Drop Down
Earl
Earl

Suspended

Joined: 13-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote Desimir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 08:49
I dont think US won the Cold War.Its better to say that USSR lost it and thats because of internal economical problems.And Star Wars program wasnt active and completed.

About war with terrorists and guerrilas i think that bigger army can defeat them on the battlefield(like turkish crushed kurdish rebels,chechenians are already beaten,talibans are almost destroyed)>But after that they begin to act as terrorist with bombing acts.For example Beslan,Moscow Siege,explosions in turkey.To eliminate that thread you dint need powerful army but a very good intelligence and security servise,and well trained special forces(mostly for Urban Operations).

The situation in Iraq is a little bit different.US forces cant copy with iraqis terrorist and with every day they become stronger,it is my point of view.
    
    

Edited by Desimir - 17-Sep-2006 at 08:53
Back to Top
Batu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2006
Location: Barad-dur
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405
  Quote Batu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 07:28
Turkey is the most succesful country against guerillas.the key is intelligence and elite commando forces.
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )
Back to Top
Maljkovic View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
  Quote Maljkovic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 04:09
The problem came about when it became unaceptable to retaliate on the general population for actions taken by guerillas and terorists. With that gone, the state had lost it's most powerful weapon.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 02:20
Govt. forces & terrorists can never be compared. Gurillas & terrorists are not the same. Terrorists are criminals while gurillas are fighters. A case in teh point is the LTTE. It is a gurilla organisation. While hjizbollah is clearly a  terrorist organisaton. An state army can successfully & efficiently fight a gurilla army, but it is impossible for any state army to finish off terrorism. That needs a political solution.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:25
 
 
 
Originally posted by J.M.Finegold

Originally posted by Paul

What is actually needed is a financially more efficient way of waging war.  And there is an example in the past. The British war with Indonesia. In that war rather than commit huge numbers of ground troops at great expense, Britain just paid off the enemy.


Does, "Rome doesn't pay traitors" conjur up images in your mind?  LOL  More seriously, that is more or less what we did in Afghanistan, mind you.
 
And another problem with pay offs is that religously motivated Jihaders are far more difficult to bribe than politically motivated opponents.  When one believes that he is fighting for God, money does not mean much.
 
Despite huge rewards, Ben Ladin and other top Al Queda leaders have not been betrayed by their followers.   This is in direct contrast to various left wing /  right wing political terror groups whose members waited in line to accept bribes for betraying each other. 


Edited by Cryptic - 14-Sep-2006 at 15:51
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.