View Full Version : Some Thoughts I Found Interesting on Guerrilla Warfare
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 09:55
1. Geography has historically been very important. Guerrilla movements have usually preferred regions that are not very accessible. Areas in which they are difficult to locate and the enemy can not deploy his full strength. Such areas are ideal in the organization periods.
However, the hardships go both ways.
Also, if relegated to remote areas, it is hard for the guerrillas to be effective at other than attacking remote out posts.
Geography is less important now. Technological advances have made the guerrillas easier to locate.
Urbanization has reduced the political importance of rural areas.
Guerrilla movements need bases and a steady flow of supplies.
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 09:57
2. Guerrilla wars very often occur in areas in which such wars have occurred before.
This may be due in part to geographical factors.
May also be due to the hold of central governments being weak or non-existent in these areas.
Cultural traditions also play a role.
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 09:59
3. There is a negative correlation between guerrilla warfare and the degree of economic development. There have been few peasant guerrilla wars in modern times in which acute agrarian demands constituted the central issue.
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 10:03
4. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries there have been three main types of guerrilla wars.
Yjey have been directed against foreign occupants. Guerrilla warfare has been the favorite tactic of separatist, minority movements fighting the central government. Guerrilla warfare against the native incumbents has been the rule in Latin America and in a few other countries.
But the national, patriotic element has always been heavily emphasized even if the domestic rulers were he target; they were attacked as foreign hirelings by the true patriots fighting for national unity and independence.
Most guerrilla wars are nationalist/separatist, not Marxist/Leninist
Roguish Lawyer
04-14-2004, 10:06
Good stuff. Thanks. Where'd you find it?
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 10:15
Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical & Critical Study Walter Laquer
Its pretty good. He keeps drifting off into terrorism. My guess in an attempt to keep it relevant and because the difference is hard to distinguish. He wrote a companion study on terrorism that I also have and apparently one of the two together.
Also over looks or barely mentions movements I consider to be good examples - the FARC as case in point. Original edition was 1956, the one I have has a new introduction and is from 1986. Some of the movements he discusses in the past tense are still active - jumped the gun I guess.
Good history though. In both the Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism books.
My copy keeps getting delayed. Damn Amazon.co.uk; typical British service.
Are Guerrilla Warfare strategies becoming larger in scale? Looking at certain groups in the middle east, it seems that Guerrillas are increasingly state-sponsored not only in supplies etc, but also in location. This may be because borders in these areas were artificially created during the Days of the Empires, and do not reflect cultural boundaries. This facilitates cross-border activity.
Does that hold water?
Solid
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 10:33
I would say they are getting smaller. Mostly because they have to move into more urban areas to survive and be affective.
The state sponsorship has always been there. Where would the Vietnamese have been without the Soviets and Chinese and safe havens (except from SOG) in Laos and Cambodia?
Very few movements have survived without the ability to seek safe haven in a country with ajacent borders.
Also, the white side political party is usually outlawed and forced to work externally. These parties are important for maintaining relationships and raising funds. IRA, PLO, etc.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
04-14-2004, 14:56
At the risk of starting a philosophical discussion, I think it is, IMHO, important not to use guerrillas and guerrilla warfare interchangeably. Guerrilla forces are the overt arm of guerrilla warfare but may not be the most important aspect of the movement and may not surface until all the conditions are right for their employment. The underground is usually the controlling aspect for the operation and is normally in place to provide support, direction, intelligence and C2 for the effort long before folks may even be aware that their is a guerrilla force in existance. Also do not be too hasty to rule out the effectiveness of urban guerrilla operations. While their organization would be highly cellular and more like underground operations they still could be supported by an outside underground operating clandestinely in another country and calling the shots as to when to strike and when to remain dormant. I think that should be evident with what is going on in the world today.
Jack Moroney
Für die Sicherheit
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 15:05
At the risk of starting a philosophical discussion,
I can practically guarantee it. LOL But nothing wrong with that!
Well said sir. However, I am not sure if I believe in the concept of the urban guerrilla or operation. I tend to think of urban guerrillas and operations as terrorism.
Could you provide an example of an outside underground operating clandestinely in another country? Are they clandestine to the target country or clandestine to the host country?
The Reaper
04-14-2004, 15:33
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Could you provide an example of an outside underground operating clandestinely in another country? Are they clandestine to the target country or clandestine to the host country?
U.S. OSS in Occupied France, WW II?
TR
If the government police infrastructure functions adequately, can't urban guerrilla cells be prevented from growing to an unmanageable size? It seems that all the successful ones (Iraq etc) the Government forces either lack policing ability or the guerrilla movement has existed previously.
Solid
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
1. Geography has historically been very important. Guerrilla movements have usually preferred regions that are not very accessible. Areas in which they are difficult to locate and the enemy can not deploy his full strength. Such areas are ideal in the organization periods.
However, the hardships go both ways.
Also, if relegated to remote areas, it is hard for the guerrillas to be effective at other than attacking remote out posts.
Geography is less important now. Technological advances have made the guerrillas easier to locate.
Urbanization has reduced the political importance of rural areas.
Guerrilla movements need bases and a steady flow of supplies.
This is a little bit of the chicken and egg, but geography is likely not the root cause in these cases, but rather the lack of infrastructure that would facilitate the development of a common identity between a more accessible and more geographically isolated groups.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
04-14-2004, 19:55
<<Could you provide an example of an outside underground operating clandestinely in another country? Are they clandestine to the target country or clandestine to the host country?>>
Not in this forum, but I think that it would not be too far off the mark to expect the Cubans in Miami, any number of African nations that are fostering uprisings in countries from which the ruling elite has been displaced, and I am sure we have some communist organizations from the newly liberated eastern European countries that haven't given up trying to get back into power. The old Yugoslavia comes to mind.
Jack Moroney
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 20:12
Cubans in Miami - great choice. Never occurred to me. Thank you sir.
NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2004, 20:14
Originally posted by Jimbo
This is a little bit of the chicken and egg, but geography is likely not the root cause in these cases, but rather the lack of infrastructure that would facilitate the development of a common identity between a more accessible and more geographically isolated groups.
I'm not following you. I'm confused.
What I was trying to get at was its not so much the guerrillas CHOOSING remote geography as it is remote geography being one of the root causes of conflict. It is often as difficult to transport solid national identity through jungle as it is to move more traditional commodities.
Roguish Lawyer
04-20-2004, 06:06
Originally posted by Jimbo
What I was trying to get at was its not so much the guerrillas CHOOSING remote geography as it is remote geography being one of the root causes of conflict. It is often as difficult to transport solid national identity through jungle as it is to move more traditional commodities.
That is a VERY interesting statement. Makes good sense too, when you think about it. Kind of like Galapagos turtles . . .
NousDefionsDoc
04-20-2004, 10:36
Originally posted by Jimbo
What I was trying to get at was its not so much the guerrillas CHOOSING remote geography as it is remote geography being one of the root causes of conflict. It is often as difficult to transport solid national identity through jungle as it is to move more traditional commodities.
You are right about the state presence in remote areas of course. However, when doing an area study for feasibility for a movement, that is but one of the considerations, albeit an important one. Movements do best on the fringe of the remote are, not deep into it. They need some state presence to use as targets in the early stages. The troops in these areas are not usually the best, nor are the commanders.
In LATAM, there has been far more changes of power through coups than G movements. Therefore the best troops are usually in or near the capital.
The fringes also offer the kind of support from the local populace needed.
Che for example went too deep in Bolivia.
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Movements do best on the fringe of the remote are, not deep into it. They need some state presence to use as targets in the early stages.
If a guerrilla coulmn attacks a govt outpost where there is none, does it make a sound?
There is no movement if there is nothing to move against, so of course you will see more attacks on the fringe than deep in the jungle primeval. Suppose though, rather than slowly expanding the area of influence, troops just got dropped into a remote area that did not have any representation from the central government (positive or negative). That group might suffer the same number of attacks as those on the fringe.
All of this is assuming that the remote areas are populated. When I talk about remote, I'm talking about a geographic area that is populated, but has limited contact with the central government due to extreme geography.
NousDefionsDoc
04-20-2004, 11:20
The other consideration is recruiting. If there is little or no state presence, the locals won't have much to be pissed off about. Less likely to join the movement.
If the Gs have to move long distances to get to the edge of the state presence, they run an increased risk of detection.
Roguish Lawyer
04-20-2004, 11:50
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The other consideration is recruiting. If there is little or no state presence, the locals won't have much to be pissed off about. Less likely to join the movement.
If the Gs have to move long distances to get to the edge of the state presence, they run an increased risk of detection.
Do we need to distinguish between separatists and non-separatists here?
NousDefionsDoc
04-20-2004, 11:55
I don't think so, the principles hold true.
JMO
JMO?
I believe that O'Neill mentions the PLFO in Oman having success because the population in the Khofar region (I think, don't have my copy) felt alienated from the government, partially because of their geographic seperation. This would seem to support Jimbo's hypothesis.
Solid
NousDefionsDoc
04-20-2004, 12:07
Just My Opinion
One case of 1,000. Remember what I told you about O'Neill
Thanks. I really have to get that Small Wars book and broaden my reading base.
Solid
NousDefionsDoc
04-20-2004, 12:14
The Walter Laquer book is the best to start with I think.
NDD- I have the available ones on order, but they are in short supply. Coincidentally, I recieved No End To War: Terrorism in the 21st century today, but I'd prefer to start with his classic pieces so I probably won't be reading that for a few more months assuming the other books arrive promptly.
Solid
On second thoughts, this is a long shot, but...
If any of you have any Laqueur books (Guerrilla and Guerrilla Reader come to mind) that you'd be willing to part with (for reimbursement), it'd be much appreciated.
Solid
NousDefionsDoc
04-20-2004, 13:35
Amazon
Nothing on .co.uk, I guess I'll have to try .com and see if my relatives will oblige me with an early birthday present.
Solid
Sacamuelas
04-20-2004, 14:04
SOLID ordering all these Insurgencies & Guerrilla Warfare
books... I bet there are four SAS guys stationed outside his dorm room right now with all the CT intel gathering being focused on in the UK. :p LOL
back to the thread....
Damnation. Amazon.com has no new copies. I'll start hunting through proper bookstores the second my exams are over.
Sacamuelas- Only four?!
Solid
(or, as he put it: SOLID:confused: )
Sacamuelas
04-20-2004, 16:00
Originally posted by Solid
Sacamuelas- Only four?!
Yes, Yes. Quite right good chap. One should be more than sufficient for you. Perhaps one that is in the beginning phases of training would be adequate, with a gimp leg, blind in one eye, and one missing arm. Yes, that should be more than sufficient for the likes of you Sir!! LOL [/accent]
While I admire yor confidence that additional help to watch over you would be needed... I somehow picture you against even one professional as going something like this.
Solid: Have at you.
[i]SAS Soldier: You are indeed brave, sir Solid, but the fight is mine.
Solid: Oh, had enough eh?
SAS Soldier: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
Solid: Yes I have.
SAS Soldier: Look.
Solid: Just a flesh wound.
[Solid continues to threaten the Soldier despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
Solid: Right, I'll do you for that!
SAS Soldier: You'll what?
Solid: Come here!
SAS Soldier: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Solid: I'm invincible!
SAS Soldier: ...You're a loony.
Note: yes, I think that movie is hilarious. :D
I suppose the acronym for this would be ROFLMFAOWCOT!!!!!!
Great movie, I feel honoured to be cast as the Knight who will not quit.
Naturally, I'll have to point out that I SPEAK AMERICAN....
... but it is funny, granted.
Oh, and I said "only four" because I had ordered so many books. They'd think I was stockpiling and send five.
LOL
That was damn funny
Solid