The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment||Date: 1/24/2013 11:00 AM|
|Author: AdvocatusDiaboli||Number: 668080 of 771041|
Since when is guerrilla warfare a sure loser, even against a sophisticated, well-equipped army? Until the Awakening changed the dynamic in Anbar province, Iraqi Sunnis were doing okay holding out against the world’s hyperpower.
Alright 2828, let me ask if you can see yourself agreeing that this statement is a good idea:
"And then we're going to grab a bunch of rifles and we'll fight it out with the Marines."
Does that sound like a good idea?
The Iraqi Sunnis would have done better against the US Army WITHOUT guns, because in firefights, they DIED. HORRIBLY. TYPICALLY ALL OF THEM.
I remember reading an interesting article about how there were no veteran resistance fighters because the casualty rate of any engagement tended to approach 100%.
What the insurgency did, what was effective, was IEDs, mortars, RPGs, etc.
The "gun" part of the insurgency was always pretty suicidal. Well, I guess the guns were useful in massacring Shi'ites.
The point of Petraeus-style counterinsurgency doctrine, I thought, is that even the most well-trained, well-equipped force can’t pacify a population through brute strength.
A Petraeus-style counterinsurgency is only necessary if the military isn't willing to massacre vast swaths of the population in going suppressing the resistance.
Stalin and Saddam for example suppressed several uprisings successfully, if necessary, they just exterminated a good part of the population concerned.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|