Which strategy do you think worked well against guerrilla warfare ?
>>1250516
"Don't let them get supplies, training, or some other form of help from a third party during the conflict" is the best strategy for beating guerrilla warfare.
>implying anyone has actually won against guerilla's.
All you can do is hold on.
>>1250516
Nukes
>>1250516
The usual way you work to defeat an insurgent movement is to simultaneously
A) Apply a saturation of local military force such that you can carve out enclaves that the guerillas can't really get to
B) Work to build local government institutions that can endure once you pull your troops out, because you don't want to keep occupying that area forever.
C) Seek to break apart whatever the basis of support that the insurgency is drawing upon. That varies a lot from place to place and time to time. Nationalist revolts are much tougher to deal with because of the difficulty in this stage.
>>1250523
Go ask the LTTE if that's really the case. If you can find any left.
>>1250523
Right, that's why the Apache tribes are still roaming the American West, scalping unsuspecting whites.
>>1250555
But that isn't the reasoning of this thread. And everyone knows you don't defeat insurgents on the battlefield, you defeat them in governance.
Literally anything will work if you're willing to commit to the war indefinitely and the rebels don't have the ability to topple your government through conventional warfare.
Insurgents usually win when they're fighting a foreign country with a finite level of commitment, and usually lose when they're fighting their own countries government, which will continue to fight indefinitely because it's their asses on the line.
That said, COIN doctrine works. The guerrilla is a fish swimming in a sea of people, and if you can separate them from the people, by marginalizing them politically, they can not survive. If you can't, any counter-insurgency effort will be like fishing by repeatedly punching the water.
>>1250558
What? This thread is literally about which strategy to use against guerilla fighters, are you actually retarded?
You just said what I said although you are apparently right. Do not bother answering my question, doesn't matter - you may as well be.
>>1250545
I'm pretty sure the apaches weren't that discerning in who they scalped familiar.
>>1250566
>What? This thread is literally about which strategy to use against guerilla fighters,
Yes, which part of this are you having trouble with? Guerillas, by definition, have minimal battlefield presence. They cannot directly command or control territory when a regular force rolls through. At best, they can inflict enough damage and be expensive enough to root out that they're not worth the trouble of obliterating.
The prime considerations of counterinsurgency strategy revolve less around battlefield considerations and more about governance considerations: of creating institutions that can deal with the problems that create guerillas without necessitating bloody and expensive occupations.
If you had EVER read a book about COIN, you would know this, you absolute fucking dipshit.
>>1250566
>it doesn't count as a strategy if it's not on a battlefield
You know fucking nothing about war.
>>1250584
Kek you are disregarding the fact that this thread is specifically about guerilla WARFARE.
>b-b-but you don't know what guerilla warfare is!
>even though this topic is directly related to physical battles
>that's not what "I" am arguing!
:^)
>>1250594
I genuinely can't tell if this is a troll post or there are people who don't understand the difference between strategy and tactics, but still post.
Both, probably.
>>1250516
Creating an apartheid state and fencing in dissidents seems to work well.
>>1250597
Yeah bro, keep arguing semantics, even though semantics has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It's working oh so well.
>>1250594
>Kek you are disregarding the fact that this thread is specifically about guerilla WARFARE.
Do you not understand what the words you use mean? In no guerilla conflict since the term was coined to speak about the Napoleonic wars, was the battlefield issue paramount. When guerillas go up against regular troops, they pretty much lose every single time. It's true across cultures, times, levels of technology, you name it. It turns out conventional armies are pretty good at doing what they're designed to do, and irregular forces not so much.
The strategy of winning a guerilla war is therefore not primarily focused on how you win battles, because if you can't win battles in the first place, you probably aren't fighting a guerilla war, you're probably fighting and losing a conventional one.
You quite literally do not know what guerilla warfare is.
>>1250559
Pretty much this desu
>>1250523
Soviet Union managed to crush anti-communist resistance in Eastern Europe following World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_anti-Communist_insurgencies
How they did it so easily? Because no one cared. As Carl Schmitt said in "Theory of the Partisan", guerrilla warfare is only effective as the military arm of a political operation carried out by a third party that would probably be successful anyway. No third party was interested in anti-communist resistance in Eastern Europe, so they were easily defeated.
The lesson here is that if you want to defeat guerrilla warfare, first you must either delegitimate or kill off the third party which is using them for their own purposes. In the context of most anti-guerrilla operation, that means left-wing intellectuals.
That's why Pinochet was so effective. First he threw the intellectuals, the journalists and the artists out of helicopters. Them he moved against the paramilitary wings of the Chilean communist movements. As it turned out, without a voice in the media to speak for them, they were easily defeated.
Chiang kai-shek should have payed someone to murder Brooks Atkinson, Edgar Snow and Owen Lattimore. Fulgencio Batista should have murdered Herbert Matthews, then they would have won.
The Combined Action Platoon worked pretty well in vietnam.
A 13-man Marine team + 1 Navy Corpsman would be embedded within a town, leading a militia made up of men of the same town.
The militia got the advantage of having the Marines training them. The Marines got the advantage of better intelligence from people protecting their own families; and the civilian leaders got the advantage of having a more stable situation in their town.
Instead of waiting to be attacked, they would go out nightly and set up ambush points on the roads/paths leading to the city.
>>1250627
>Chiang kai-shek should have payed someone to murder Brooks Atkinson, Edgar Snow and Owen Lattimore. Fulgencio Batista should have murdered Herbert Matthews, then they would have won.
While I do agree with a lot of what you say, I'm not so sure about this one.
Go back further, to the "bandit pacification campaigns" before the Japanese came knocking. After a lot of effort, Chiang managed to chase Mao's boys all the way up to Lan-Chow, but even with them cleared out, he never really was able to impose KMT rule, in things like taxation and drawing of manpower, in Guangdong and Jiangxi, their former strongholds.
The KMT was all sorts of fucked up, and even without dealing with foreign influences, they never really had enough control over the Chinese political realm to make what you're saying work.
>>1250627
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Atkinson
>While in China, he visited Mao Tse-Tung in Yenan and was captivated by Mao, writing favorably on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) movement, and against the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Shek, which he saw as reactionary and corrupt. After visiting Yenan, he wrote that the CCP political system was best described as an "agrarian or peasant democracy, or as a farm labor party."[2][3] Atkinson viewed the Chinese Communist Party as Communist in name only and more democratic than totalitarian; the Times effusively titled his article Yenan, a Chinese Wonderland City.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews
>In July 1959, Matthews denied that Fidel Castro was communist, saying: "This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist."
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
>In The New York Times on 31 March 1933, Walter Duranty denounced reports of a famine and, in particular, he attacked Gareth Jones, a British journalist who had witnessed the starving in Ukraine and issued a widely published press release about their plight two days earlier in Berlin.
What is the problem with the New York Times? Were they just gullible or legitimately treasonous and pro-communist?
>>1250629
The Green Berets literally exist to do this sort of thing.
Ironically, they're descended from the Jedburg teams the OSS used to help foment insurgency in occupied Europe.
The US realized that the capability they used to fight the Germans might be useful if the Soviets invaded Western Europe, and set up a unit to train anti-communist guerillas in the event of a war in Europe.
And then they realized that most of the guerillas in the world are communist guerillas in capitalist countries, not the other way around.
But yeah, the way to win a counterinsurgency is to think small scale, local, and intimately connected to the local community.
>>1250650
The CAP program also prevented the VC and NVA from using the village for supplies and men, which forced them to carry their provisions with them.
The cap program worked especially well south of Da Nang in the "dodge city" area.
>>1250650
>The US realized that the capability they used to fight the Germans might be useful if the Soviets invaded Western Europe, and set up a unit to train anti-communist guerillas in the event of a war in Europe.
And then local politicians decided to use the resources the U.S. handed to potential anti-communist guerrillas in Europe for their own purposes.
>>1250516
Genocide
cut them off from resupply
if it is not possible to seal off a land border, support your own guerrillas and create a buffer zone where they are constantly fighting each other
if a "buffer zone" would encompass your heartland, become a ruthless totalitarian regime that has no moral qualms about wiping out entire villages to kill 1 sympathizer
>>1250691
If we're talking about fighting a guerrilla war, it wouldn't work to kill off a village just to get one insurgent.
The theory of a guerrilla war is to act in such a way as to force the major power to over-react. So much so that the people can no longer stand the "oppression" of the people in power.
So killing off a village to get one insurgent is exactly what the guerrilla force wants, because it helps to create more guerrillas from those who find such responses intolerable.
>>1250608
>he actually continued
Nice.
I think guerilla warfare is only effective against western nations, do you think an uncuked nation like China would struggle with it? they'd just carpet bomb any region afflicted by it and disregard muh civilians
>>1250875
Do you know how the current regime got into power in China, anon?
>>1250523
Second boer war
Malayan emergency
The troubles
Etc
>>1250730
You need mad population though. Burning villages took care of the injuns.
>>1250875
Guerrilla tactic is only has more effective in the modern time. Back then, they didn't give a shit, simply wiped out area to area , massacred and took prisoners, burned the fields.
One of the best possible solutions to Guerilla warfare without going full retard on the populace is to simply burn, loot, and steal, literally anything that could be used to fight against your forces.
Take whatever food you can with you, and burn everything else to the ground.
It might be cruel, but it's a damn sight better than simply killing everyone.
>>1250916
Guerrilla tactic was the norm back then, so much so that the term was only coined in recent times.
>>1250516
Bomb their cities.
If that don't work, get a bigger bomb.
Repeat until no more guerillas.
>>1250937
Caesar rekt the Gauls with that strategy. It's cruel, but it's highly effective
A CAP type program + LRRPs supported by aircraft + political and social discrediting of the guerrillas seems like a sensible strategy, especially seeing as how a scorched earth campaign is not feasible in modern times.
>>1250885
Are you saying the bumdestroyed remains of nationalist china was in any shape to carpet bomb anyone?
>>1251057
Why don't you look up how the conflict started in the 30s?
They were enormously stronger than the Chi-coms, and had no compunctions about using excessive force to root them out in the southeast. It wasn't working.
this conversation is surprisingly intellectual for 4chan.
>>1251097
30s China had no capability to turn a region into glass let alone a mountain region outside their supply range
>>1250730
>it helps to create more guerrillas
Not in a total information blackout.
>>1251121
And why are you focusing on absolute power instead of relative power?
>>1250650
>small scale, local, and intimately connected to the local community.
I remember reading a sort of manual recommending this by some special forces guy in Afghanistan. I can't remember much about it except that he called one of the major tribal leaders Sitting Bull.
The nation attacking guerrillas needs to not give a shit about civilian casualties, else the war will be very hard
>>1250875
The Nazis tried this.
For every one of their troops killed by partisans, they'd kill some number of civilians (if memory serves, it ranged from 10 to over 100 depending on the time.)
When the mayor of Minsk was assassinated, they destroyed entire villages and killed everyone they found.
Partisan activity continued throughout the war, and only increased with each new round of violence against the civilian populace.
Humans aren't livestock. If you start killing members of their group, and they have even a tiny chance to fight back, they'll fight back.
>>1251123
When has a total information blackout ever worked?
>>1251138
Yeah, that's why the Soviet Union defeated the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan!
>>1250516
Starve them to death.
A recent victory of a nation over Guerrilas was Sri Lanka forcing the Tamil Tigers to disband, and what the Tamil commanders admitted was that irrigation and water sources in the North of the island were completely diverted, cutting off food and water in Tamil-controlled lands.
This forced the Tamils to raid nearby cities for food and water, where the military gladly met them there and cut them down. This repeated for years until the Guerrilas were facing mass death from starvation due to their isolation from food and water.
>>1251147
And so we come back to needing to defeat the third party using the guerillas
>>1251177
Every guerilla force since the Napoleonic wars has gotten aid from outside forces. Every. Single. One. It's part of the game. You can't hide behind that when your idiot premise turns out to not actually correlate with success.
>>1251143
in every single autocratic state that has existed in history
>>1251203
Your deluded if you think a state has ever had the ability to totally control the flow of information
>>1250516
Fireforce and whatever else Rhodesia did
though even a good counter insurgency campaign will backfire if your country has turned into a sanctioned international pariah
>>1251189
>Every guerilla force since the Napoleonic wars has gotten aid from outside forces. Every. Single. One.
Mau Mau.
>>1250523
soviets did. and they did it so well that majority of people doesn't even remember that eastern europe was full of resistance insurgencies well to the 50's.
It should be pointed out that it is an order of magnitude easier to prevent an insurgency than to stop one once it has begun.
It's the equivalent of getting gangrene on damaged limb.
It's bad, but you should really focus on whatever cause circulation to cut out in the first place.
>>1251316
I've never really looked at the Mau Mau in depth, but I was sure that the Soviets sent them some aid.
>>1251213
>you're*
I am not deluded then as I do not believe a state has ever had the ability to totally control the flow of information.
What they can do is limit people's movements and control the media making it difficult for an insurgent to infiltrate far, spread the news that a village was wiped out due to the presence of an insurgent like himself, be believed and convince illiterate agricultural laborers suffering from malnutrition to become fighters for a cause that is likely little more righteous than the autocratic state.
When fighting the gorilla you must use the gorilla. Only the most elite of the Navy seals can take back der nacht.
>>1250566
for starters there is a difference between strategy, operations, and tactics. Once the baby fat disappears, you should try actually reading about counterinsurgency theory. Or just war in general. Or you are just an idiot which is more likely. Delete your post.
>>1250594
lets start from the beginning, faggot. Have you ever heard of two fellows named Sun Tzu or Carl Von Clausewitz?
>>1250601
You're an idiot
>>1250516
Guerrillas get a lot of help (supplies, intel and hiding etc.) from small settlements around the enemy army (villages, small towns etc.) the quickest and easiest way would be to purge entirely these small settlements until they have no hiding place and force them into the open where they'll get torn to shreds in a direct assault by your army
Like I said, not the best way but the quickest and easiest
>>1250523
>implying anyone has actually won against guerilla's.
USAyyy
UKayyy
And many others ayyy.
>>1250916
Guerilla warfare was literally how tribalnignogs fought vs. stronker opponents.
It is as old as time itself. Guerilla warfare was just coined in the early 19th century thanks to Spics fighting Napoops. The norm was large-ass battles at the time, and the Guerillas didn't play that shit. Hence the name, "to make the war small (Guerilla = little war).
In Brazil the military regime lasted because a communist guerrilla was formed in the amazonian jungle. They were supposed to be in power just to throw away the socialist president and then bring new elections, but since the guerrilla started, they saw there was no other way but to keep the government in their hands.
But the fact is: The government repressed the uprising so well, that nowadays people think they stayed in power just "because yes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araguaia_Guerrilla_War
Also, a strong "anti-whatever their ideology is" propaganda will help their stagnation.
>>1250627
Yeah, but what if the third party is Russia, China or the US?
>>1250599
This.
It worked well enough for the British when dealing with the Boers.
>>1251667
Let's just look at two modern autocratic states to see how well it works.
In North Korea, all aspects of media and education are controlled. And you can be arrested and killed if you are found in possession of a modified radio or an unsanctioned newspaper.
The result? There is a heavy black market in modifying radios to pick up western stations; and there is a very large barter system going on for SD cards with western and American movies on them.
Result: though the people play lip service in public to the regime, they have easy and ready access to non-approved information from a variety of sources.
Iran: Here they have slightly less control of the media, but they also have the morality police who like to keep everyone under their thumb.
In Iran there is a big black market for illegal satellite dishes, and you see them all over which allow the citizen to get western information.
From the photographs sneaked out of nazi concentration camps, to the flow of back-channel information within the Soviet Union, to modern live streams which show a narrative different from what the MSM has broadcast, history has shown again and again that it is impossible to achieve total information control
>>1250601
kys m8
>semantics
>literally two different words with different meanings
>>1250599
>Creating a centrifugal Islamic force that defames the PLO and poisoning Yasser Arafat seems to work well.
Fix'd
>>1250523
Britian has done it multiple times.
>>1250545
Not really guerillas
>>1251139
yeah alright its not like they had effective command and supply from the NKVD
>>1250516
Well speaking as an Irishman, the IRA was "defeated" in a sense, because they lost public support. The key to defeating guerilla forces isnt to blow them up, it's to have your soldiers walking around the town and talking to people. The brits were welcomed as protectors with tea and cakes in the streets by Irish Catholics at first, then they shot civilians and overnight, the entire nation turned on them
>>1254854
Speaking as a northern Republican with family where served in the IRA, the IRA was "defeated" because the political leadership was able to come to mutual agreement with the British government that the ongoing stalemate was doing nothing for either community, the IRA knew it could not expel the Brits physcially and the Brits knew there could be no military decimation of the IRA. So they traded their military power for political in the new power sharing government where most Republican's now feel an investment in peaceful strategy
The notion of "honeymoon" period is overstated, some catholics welcomed them because it was naively believed they were a better alternative to sectarian police forces, the reality was they were there to back them up and were no different
>>1254899
>speaking as someone coming from an extremely biased view point
FTFY
The IRA lost because they killed innocent civilians and most Catholics didn't want anything to do with them anymore, the IRA made peace because they were already fading away
>secure the borders (actually)
>have air and naval superiority and tons of money
>Perform search and destroy missions with the help of locals/green berets
>>1254914
>>"you are speaking as someone coming from an extremely biased view point!!!!!111"
>does the exact same thing in return
Much like 9/11, British intelligence knew about the Omagh bomb before it happened and let it happen because it helped them.
>>1254934
>it's the Brits fault I killed those civilians
>the IRA gud bhoys dey dindu nahin
>>1254914
>Implying it's possible to come from any POV without bias
Sinn Fein's political base was always small and radical, the reality is the leadership was pushed towards the peace route under Adam's since the late 80's because of many factors (war weariness from the "long war" strategy, willingness from British government for negociations, oppurtunity for political tradeoffs).
>>1254918
THat was the "Real IRA" which split from the Provos for the very reason it was commited to decommisioning and peace. The "Real IRA" still exists and is still a threat in N.Ireland
>>1254940
They had at least two informers making the bomb, they let it happen in such a way as to kill as many people as possible when it was IRA policy to give warning and not actually kill anybody.
>>1254969
Nigger please the IRA has always been a pissweak joke of a terrorist organisation outside of your belfast telegraph. This has been true since the 1920's and its especially true now. What have they done recently...absolutely nothing.
>>1254972
I'm the northern Republican and I'm actually from Omagh. I think that's a conspiracy, no doubt both Irish and British security forces had information on the bomb but I think it happened under their watch out of pure incompetance rather than purposeful malice to propel the peace process forward. Omagh council is in fact a republican stronghold and still retains a majority SF representation
>>1254982
whatever you say. I'm not here to engage in polemics, just thought this thread might actually be worthy of discussion
>>1254998
Ok uncle tim
>>1251667
It's all practically impossible.
Even in Soviet Union everyone knew about super-secret events like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkuta_uprising
or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre
okay
>>1250516
Absolute and total war
Failing that, spend tons of money trying to outlast them while tip toeing around
Conialism.
Colonial forces had to fight Guerillas all the time. The Italians had problems with Guerillas in Libya prior to Mussolini's rise.
The thing is, guerilla movements are pretty easy to solve, and just require draconian methods to prevent their continuation. Create a massive fence across the desert to prevent troop resupply (Italians under Mussolini did this).
Starve out dissidents, round up villages, hold civilians hostage, decimate hostages when military action occurs, etc.
If you're draconian enough, the same way the colonial powers subjected forces throughout the third world, you can pretty successfully intimidate a population.
The only important thing is is that you actually have the military strength to enforce and back yourself up.
>>1257659
Nigga, some Colonial empires fell due to guerilla war.
Spain is a famous victim of this.
>>1250559
a true master of the art
>>1250516
>>1257663
Also, these draconian tactics don't go unnoticed. When the strong hand holding geurilla conflict back essentially dissolves, they take up after it in the same ways.
So it's twice the shithole after the colonial overseers leave.
Defeating insurgents depends on the reason these insurgents are fighting. For Communist guerilla, you attack the reason they would have any support by, as the British did in Malaya, creating safe villages for those villagers away from where the guerillas are operating. Then, with their population support gone, you insert green berets and foster a local anti-communist force. The guerillas must be forced into acting rashly and lashing out violently, making the established government seen as keeping law and order, instead of its own banditry, which Chiang Kai-shek's Chinese forces did to occupied areas.
For nationalists, you have to foster an alternative, friendly government, with, once again, the ability to institute law and order.
For Islamic insurgents, you foster opposition groups to them, whether that be nationalistic, religious or secular, as is being done against ISIS. Whenever they gather to use a conventional force, air, land and sea superiority should be used to crush them.
All in all, though, the safest bet for any kind of insurgency is to take away the legitimacy of a violent movement by offering alternative actions to the disenfranchised, and by removing the reason as best is possible that people would be disenfranchised.
t. Armchair General.
-How to Eat Soup With a Knife.
>>1250559
and if you cant marginalize them politically you gotta get bigger fists
>>1250516
The Roman strategy of crucifying the shit out of everyone until they surrender then crucify them too.
>>1250601
>arguing semantics
Why you gotta bring the Jews into this
1.) Start industry and give them work
2.). More than half of guerilla members join because they pay them a salary. Not because they actually believe in the cause. Money convinces.
3.) Audit politicians in the area. If guerilla groups exist is because of corruption. People dont like to murder for nothing unless mentally deranged. They prefer to be drinking, laughing, dancing and partaking in their hobbies.
4.) Guerillas thrive off of local produce and extortion.
5.) Create local non military police in the area
6.) Military police are an incubation ground for right wing guerilla groups. They feed off of products, produce and weapons that go unaccounted by their own government. Their govt turns the blind eye because they do the dirty work for the supporting politicians.
>>1250675
t.Talaat Pasha
>>1250875
>would an "uncucked" nation like China struggle with it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict
>>1251138
Yea cause that won't create any new insurgents at all!
>>1250516
Clear enemy from a location then abandon the location and then clear them out again wash rinse repeat welcome to nam bitch
>>1260752
You sure imitating American tactics in their most famous defeat is a good idea?
>>1260782
It'll work in a location with no trees
>>1260782
>in their most famous defeat is a good idea
>implying Vietnam was a military defeat
Gooks got rekt
>>1260820
What makes you think that? You don't see Americans trying something like that in Iraq or Afghanistan, and neither are particularly noted for their forestry
>>1260845
>Implying it was a victory.
Bodycounting doesn't win COIN. And leaving areas and allowing your enemy to reinfest them so you can get a big body count later also means that they destroy whatever local governance is trying to establish itself in the meantime, which means you will literally be there until they run out of people, which could take decades.
It's a dumb as fuck idea.
>>1250516
Literally everything Ramon Magsaysay did against the Huks.
>reforming the military and police
>elimination of political corruption
>listening to the people
>actually addressing the problems the people face
>not being a dick to surrendered insurgents
>reforming insurgents
genocide
>>1250516
Kill their women and children. Destroy anything they could use as a food supplies. Demolition all housing or anything that could be used as shelter. Carpet bomb there home nation everyday for an entire year
>>1261021
This. The only way to fight against guerrilla warfare is through total war. Destroy literally everything you see, don't spare civilians. Because when you have insurgents hiding among civilians, there's really no effective and moral way to fight them.
>>1260970
Yeah but Marcos fucked the Philippines' shit up, which led to commie revival.
>>1260970
defeating guerrillas on an island is easy mode
>>1250523
Just don't hold back. Crush them with overwhelming force with no concerns for civilian causalities.
>>1262103
Which is why Nazi Germany broke those pesky resistance movements in the countries it conquered. It's why the Soviets won in Afghanistan. It's why the KMT rules China today.
Oh. wait.
>>1250516
Genocide the local population until the guerrillas lose the will to fight, or are so depleted in numbers and supplies, that they are incapable of fighting. This is the tactic everyone used to use before the modern age and it's why you don't hear of many successful guerrilla campaigns before 150 years ago.
>>1250875
western nations are the only ones capable of dealing with it, the rest just collapse instantly
>>1262433
Aracaupo war, Persian invasion of Scythia, Parthian wars against the Romans, Skanderburg against the Ottomans. It took 200 years for the Romans to pacify the Spanish. And those are just examples I know off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot more.
I mean for fuck's sake, Sun Tzu talks about employing it, and he obviously thought it was effective. That's what? 600 B.C.?
>>1262427
forgot to add that you need to cut off the foreign backing and people will soon give up
>>1262500
Good luck with that. While you're at it, why don't you use your mind-reading devices to figure out who is sympathetic to the guerillas and who isn't so you can apply lethality with perfect precision?
>>1254397
Let's say North Korea's modified radio ban reduces the proportion of the population with access to them from 90% to 10%. Even though it is not 0% they no longer have to worry about nearly every soldier they recruit having listened to South Korean propaganda among other things. Even if rates only drop from 90% to 85%, the fact it is illegal will stop most people talking about it, it still has an effect.
Autocratic states can kill large numbers of people with virtually no consequences. Most people are aware they are not living in a utopia, but with censorship, snitches and paranoia it is difficult for them to network and organize against the regime, enough for regimes like North Korea's to exist for decades.
>>1255029
Pretty sure the majority of the population never heard about it until the fall of communism decades later.
>>1262422
Nazi Germany didn't kill literally every citizen they saw, nor did the Soviet Union. What I'm saying is that in order to defeat guerrilla warfare, you need to hold absolutely nothing back, give no quarter. Which, (Realistically) is impossible. In order to fight guerrilla warfare "Morally", you need to remove their will to fight.
>>1262994
True. The Nazis did even far more retarded shit.
>LOOK, THESE UKRAINIANS LOVE US.
>LET US NEEDLESSLY KILL THEM AND TURN THEIR OPINION AGAINST US.
>>1250516
turning the local population against them
>>1262994
But they did do collective reprisals, employ overwhelming force, and didn't balk at wholesale liquidation of troublesome segments of the population.
It didn't end resistance.
>>1250516
Massacring the villagers
>>1262433
>Genocide the local population
That can only work in case your army is huge and your resources are also huge, and you're literally a hegemon and they're without any real support.
Otherwise when you ramp up brutality and especially if you make it ''we either fight or we die'' it only makes more people rise up against you and it makes them more motivated.
Also, what's the fucking point of conquest if you exterminate everyone?
Unless you have ample population to settle that region, you basically made it a useless wasteland.
>>1250516
Don't get into a guerilla war. Use foreign aid and bribes to peddle influence. Anything else is futile without overwhelming force.
>>1250516
war crimes like the french did in Algeria or the south american dictators did.
Works, but normally the gouvernments or international organisations stop that
Ghengis khan.
>>1263368
Mongols
establish these two ways as the only ones home, victory or death
>>1250875
How's highschool?
Just carpet bomb them, right???
Haha
>>1250937
That kind of strategy died with the advent of TV
You can't sustain any kind of internationally unpalatable COIN campaign anymore, especially if you're in the UN.
>>1250950
In what world would that work?
>>1250516
Colonization.
Government and Administration.
people want easier lives, just make that quest for an easier life go smoother with superior administration and the people will turn against the resistance. You only need to hold on like this for one generation.
Let the old die out and the young bring in the new culture.
Or you could wage a war against nature and count these "men" as animals, I mean, how else do you defeat gorillas?
>>1262414
>no concern for civilian causalities
Then why do the Taliban and various other Islamist groups only grow in numbers whenever civilians die in air strikes?
>>1250523
>implying anyone has won against guerillas
yep, you're right, it's great to finally see a united Ireland at last.
>>1263690
If the USA wanted they could level the Middle East. If they decided to just start shooting everyone they would win in fairly short order. The fact that they care about civilians is what prevents them from doing so.
>>1250516
¿peace?
>>1263862
Yes they could; but why? What would be the point in starting the war in the first place if you just turned the country you were invading in to a nuclear wasteland?
>>1263057
It's only make them angrier
>>1263948
Well, if it's a nuclear wasteland with no living humans anymore, then it does remove a significant amount of unstable countries with potential terrorists inside of them.
We never wanted the territory, we just wanted to be proactive about stopping terrorism by striking at the source (or to exploit resources there, depending on how much tinfoil you like to wear).
Technically, nuking the shit out of the whole region would accomplish this by killing everybody there. But we also care about human lives too much to take them all in order to kill the terrorists which only form a fraction of it's populace.
>>1260555
Wrong
The Romans offered alternatives to tribal lifestyle, most people would prefer baths and olive oil to fighting until the end of time. That way they eliminated the problem of finding insurgents within the populace if they had a system of taxing everyone who participated in the Roman system
>>1265345
If the U.S wanted to stop terrorism at the source it might as well invade Saudi Arabia
But everyone knows why that will never happen
>>1265345
>But we also care about human lives too much to take them all in order to kill the terrorists which only form a fraction of it's populace.
Yeah, more like lobbing nukes at a bunch of desert pinpricks would convince the rest of the world that America is a mad dog that will use ridiculously disproportionate force against even minor slights, and probably get nukes incoming from the rest of the world as a matter of survival from other polities.
>>1250516
Genocide. It's shitty, and I hope it's a tactic that will never, ever be used again, but it works.
>>1265451
Nazis, KMT, Soviets in Afghanistan, yada yada yada.
>>1250516
Look up south korean marines in vietnam. Some of the most successful anti-guerilla fighters ever, involved extremely thorough sweeps of villages, tactically sound camp design, taking enemy weapon caches, and of course when it comes to battle just being better than the enemy
>>1265503
Gooks have no empathy. Chinese is now replaced the West as the new slave master in Africa. And unlike Westerners, they don't give a fuck about how they treat the blacks too cruel or call to their face that they are dumb niggers.
>>1265637
Whites didn't care either, take your white mans burden myths back to /pol/
Here in Colombia we are doing a prank that will last too long called the peace talks
Give it five years to blow up in our faces
>>1265345
>it does remove a significant amount of unstable countries with potential terrorists inside of them.
made unstable by foreign meddling in the first place
