Students of History, SU and others

[Archaea]

Is anybody aware of any conflicts where the combatants were interspersed partially throughout a population and some of the combatants used terror against civilian populations where the subduing power won?

The closest I have come, is in the UK Northern Ireland conflict.

However, I'm not certain that Britain ever succeeded in the Middle East or India.

Any world historians aware of any situations where the terroists ultimately did not win, i.e., driving the "occupiers" from their lands?

[UtahDan]

How about the American Civil War?

[Archaea]

Not really.

In that one, one side had an army which could be defeated and thus occupation set in. I imagine there were some terroistic actions taken after the War, but ...

I don't think that qualifies.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

How about the American Civil War?

The very reason the North won the American Civil War is that there was no resovle on the South's part to fight a guerilla war. Had the southerners taken cudgel in hand and fought house to house and in the bayous and the awful, deadly southern weather with the murderous commitment that, say, the Russians defended their homeland against Napoleon or the Nazis, the outcome would have been different, and the death toll would have been many times higher. Today the South would be an independent, third-world country. As I understand, the prevailing view among historians today, based on the absense of guerilla war by the South, is that the Southern cause was not committed at the grass-roots level, and from the South's perspective the Civil War was primarily of interest to the aristocracy, who are not the greatest candidates for leading a guerilla war, partly because of their limited numbers.

I'm not aware of a committed guerilla war ever failing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The very reason the North won the American Civil War is that there was no resovle on the South's part to fight a guerilla war. Had the southerners taken cudgel in hand fought house to house and in the bayous and the awful, deadly southern southern weather with the murderous commitment that, say, the Russians defended their homeland against Napoleon or the Nazis, the outcome would have been different, and the death toll would have been many times higher. Today the South would be an independent, third-world country. As I understand, the prevailing view among historians today, based on the absense of guerilla war by the South, is that the Southern cause was not committed at the grass-roots level, and from the South's perspective the Civil War was primarily of interest to the aristocracy, who are not the greatest candidates for leading a guerilla war, partly because of their limited numbers.

I'm not aware of a committed guerilla war ever failing.

Maybe we should nail this down for any future President who ever desires to fight guerillas. It can't be done, unless you're wiling to annihilate an entire population, or displace and enslave that population.

The US should rarely if ever anticipate becoming an occupying force. Hit and run should be the only policy ever envisaged, given our limited political resolve.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Maybe we should nail this down for any future President who ever desires to fight guerillas. It can't be done, unless you're wiling to annihilate an entire population, or displace and enslave that population.

The US should rarely if ever anticipate becoming an occupying force. Hit and run should be the only policy ever envisaged, given our limited political resolve.

Bingo. Occupying forces can defeat guerilla insurgencies if they're committed and ruthless enough. The U.S. obviously is not. That's not to say Iraq is a lost cause, but the insurgency will ultimately only be put down by the Iraqis themselves, cause we're just not willing to do what it takes to win (we're concerned with hearts and minds - not necessarily a bad thing).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Bingo. Occupying forces can defeat guerilla insurgencies if they're committed and ruthless enough. The U.S. obviously is not. That's not to say Iraq is a lost cause, but the insurgency will ultimately only be put down by the Iraqis themselves, cause we're just not willing to do what it takes to win (we're concerned with hearts and minds - not necessarily a bad thing).

When has an occupying force ever defeated a committed guerilla war insurgency?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

When has an occupying force ever defeated a committed guerilla war insurgency?

Isn't the probolem herre partially that we define commitment by success?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Isn't the probolem herre partially that we define commitment by success?

Tolstoy wrote this about 150 years ago in "War and Peace." I submit it's still true today.

"One of the most obvious and advantageous departures from the so-called laws of war is the action of scattered groups against men pressed together in a mass. Such action always occurs in wars that take on a national character. In such actions, instead of two crowds opposing each other, the men disperse, attack singly, run away when attacked by stronger forces, but again attack when opportunity offers. This was done by the guerrillas in Spain, by the mountain tribes in the Caucasus, and by the Russians in 1812.

People have called this kind of war 'guerrilla warfare' and assume that by so calling it they have explained its meaning. But such a war does not fit in under any rule and is directly opposed to a well-known rule of tactics which is accepted as infallible. That rule says that an attacker should concentrate his forces in order to be stronger than his opponent at the moment of conflict.

Guerrilla war (always successful, as history shows) directly infringes that rule."

Name a guerrrilla war that has failed.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tolstoy wrote this about 150 years ago in "War and Peace." I submit it's still true today.

"One of the most obvious and advantageous departures from the so-called laws of war is the action of scattered groups against men pressed together in a mass. Such action always occurs in wars that take on a national character. In such actions, instead of two crowds opposing each other, the men disperse, attack singly, run away when attacked by stronger forces, but again attack when opportunity offers. This was done by the guerrillas in Spain, by the mountain tribes in the Caucasus, and by the Russians in 1812.

People have called this kind of war 'guerrilla warfare' and assume that by so calling it they have explained its meaning. But such a war does not fit in under any rule and is directly opposed to a well-known rule of tactics which is accepted as infallible. That rule says that an attacker should concentrate his forces in order to be stronger than his opponent at the moment of conflict.

Guerrilla war (always successful, as history shows) directly infringes that rule."

Name a guerrrilla war that has failed.

Then why must it be 'committed' as set forth above? Becasue those that aren't committed fail? Thus we define them by their result and so can say they never fail, if they are committed.

Was the French Resistance in WWII guerrilla warfare?