How do you win against asymmetrical warfare? Vietnam, Iraq and so on have shown that asymmetrical warfare is better tactic than actually fighting a ground war.
>>30559844
Genocide the entire population. This is the conclusion I've come to.
>>30559859
I was thinking WW2 tactics and level the entire place to the ground but it seems I'm not the only one.
>>30559844
by taking away the will to fight from the enemy and granting the local neutral or allied parties the power to identify and respond to guerrilla forces.
theoretically people would be less prone to wanting you dead if your the only reason they have food water and electricity.
the problem is winning those "hearts and minds" and fighting through the cultural quagmire of different thought processes.
honestly even if it was a gigantic money sink the US could have left afghanistan and iraq in much better shape had we been given more time. unfortunately time and money are very finite and patience doubly so
You don't. You have a proxy war instead.
>>30559844
Personally, I think asymmetric warfare can't be won by conventional forces. You have to run assassination missions against terrorist/guerilla cells, take all their intel, and fade. Putting fobs all over some shit hole country is just presenting a target rich environment for non uniformed combatants and lowering the bar of resources required to take their ire out on you. If they operate from the shadows, so should we. The advantage a well organized force has in this case is more resources, training and mobility. If the enemy has a conventional force, smash it with your better conventional force and withdraw as soon as they are defeated. If terrorist cells crop up afterwards, sit back on an amphibious ship and wait. Let intel do its job until you have a fix on cell locations or leaders. Fly in, assasinate, gang hard drives, rinse and repeat. They can't touch you. Eventually the terrorist opposition gets demoralized because they have no recourse and they're afraid they could get killed in a raid as long as they are with the otganization. This all assumes a non civil war situation where you have the option to stay off the ground where your enemy operates.
>>30560092
Not without leveling cities or closing your boarders and everything else.
>>30559844
if you ask liberals, you clearly just drone strike all the civilians because the objective of suppressing an insurgency is just bombing your/their country to ashes :^)
>>30559844
You need a replacement governing body that the people will see as a legitimate alternative to the one you want to replace.
Otherwise, you will always be an invader, and even if you're brutal enough to make the people temporarily submit to your puppet regime, everything is just going to fall apart the moment you leave.
Don't let treasonous liberal politicians micromanage things
Getting involved in unwinnable counter insurgency operations has been a deliberate policy to demoralize America
>>30559844
>How do you win against asymmetrical warfare?
Remove offending population.
>Go in
>put village populations in guarded well stocked and well prepared concentration camps
>Proceed to burn down villages,crops, and caches to stop supplies getting to rebels
>execute those outside the camps who you can connect to supporting the rebels those who cannot get put in a camp
>Kill any armed personnel in country that are not your own or your allies.
Didn't world powers execute this method all the time? They tried to do it in cuba back in the 1900's. I'm sure the brits did it as well with success.
Not suggesting this but just curious?
>>30560336
That only works on an island or peninsula with a secure border.
>>30560336
The Bongs did it to the Boers, minus the "well stocked and well prepared" part.
>>30559844
Asymetric warfare is a political war, with military action being just a part of it. What you need to do is, as a government, take away the legitimacy of the guerrillas. Have people stop supporting them and actually be a superior alternative to the guerrillas program.
>>30559859
Literaly the onely way to win a asymetrical war
Put honeypots everywhere to the point no one knows who is who. This will force lone wolf attacks which would be easier to deal with than groups.
>>30560092
This combined with>>30561121
Also a series of programs that give humanitarian aid to the new/allied government. Giving military aid only serves the rebel propaganda to convince the people said government is just your puppet.
Alternatively, do what we used to do and just take the place over completely and declare it part of your own empire. This is after a fairly hefty genocide of course.
>>30560092
The thing is, won't collecting all this intelligence require fairly hefty levels of surveillance? This alienates the citizenry, as they start feeling like they are being watched and are under suspicion. They become more guarded, which increases government suspicion to more people. Now that a wide surveillance net is cast, actual threats are missed, or you start eliminating all potential threats, including probably some people who haven't done anything, and more and more of the citizenry starts actively turning from indifferent to hostile.
It seems like once you start fighting a legit insurgency, like the Mau Maus in Kenya or the Malayan Emergency, you've lost.
>>30559844
That looks like burning man yo.
>Vietnam, Iraq and so on have shown that asymmetrical warfare is better tactic than actually fighting a ground war.
Not really, it depends on the goal and who is playing defender. Its a great way to drag shit out and antagonize the enemy but if fucking sucks in terms of getting shit done
>>30559859
In the case of a Muslim country you'd probably need to genocide all the neighboring countries too because they pull aggro like raid bosses.
>>30559844
The army/marine counter insurgency field manual actually lays it out pretty good.
Basically, as has been said, the goal is to empower the host nation's government and people. Fundamentally it's an ideological battle (like all wars). At some point, you need to convince enough of the host nation population to be pro-government and neutral so that only a small minority is willing to take up arms.
So that means making the host nation not suck, which was basically impossible in Iraq and we barely tried in 'Nam.
By definition it's just a money sink as a foreign superpower attempts to prop up a host nation regime. A democracy's easy in a way because everyone's empowered, part of the process, and feels belonging, but only if the population's educated enough for it. Democracy doesn't work so well with stupid people.
>>30559844
what the fuck am i looking at?
