Students of History, SU and others

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Thanks goes to partyl to Robert E. Lee, who rejected guerilla war and chose to surrender and encouraged his countrymen to do the same. You're right, the war was a war waged by the aristocracy, primarily over slavery (valid arguments about economics and states rights notwithstanding), and the vast majority of confederates had no vested interest in the institution. They fought for their homeland, but their commitment was only so strong - they weren't willing to commit national suicide over it. I think the vast majority of southerners saw the long-term futility of their cause as evidenced by Sherman's march to the sea, and just wanted to stop fighting their kin (in many cases literally) to the north.

I agree with this.

[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.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by jay santos

These aren't the valid economic arguments that blacks were economically better off in slavery are they? Ugh...

No. See Seattle Ute's reply to your reply of my post.

[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?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

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?

French are not warriors, so I doubt we count them as guerillas, and they have lost their fair share of guerilla fights, in Africa, in Vietnam and Indochina, and one might suppose in South America, given their measely colonial claims there.

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

The N Ireland situation is still in the process of being resolved politically. The Brits did not win out with brute force. What ended it, ultimately, was diplomacy. Clinton and Blair deserve boatloads of credit for that one.

Fact is the IRA has kept the British very busy with less than a 1,000 fighters. And the Brits threw tons of money and political/legal resources into that one. Belfast was the most survielled city in the western world (some have said world) until recently.
I can't think of a truly great success story, maybe the NPA in the Phillipines?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Was the French Resistance in WWII guerrilla warfare?

The whole reason that the term "Vichy France" is so shameful in its connotation is that "French resistance" is a literally laughable oxymoron. I suppose it's to head off examples such as the "French resistance" that one is tempted to use the adjective "committed" in discussions about inevitable success of guerrilla warfare. But the French fought no guerrilla war at all and so hence probably the adjective is unnecessary.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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

How bout the Phillipine-American war? The Fillipino's definitely used guerilla war against the Americans and lost. Obviously they lost their "commitment", but I think it had something to do with the US Army ruthlessly kicking their asses. The US wouldn't and couldn't ever prosecute a war in that manner in this day and age.