babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Fighting Guerilla Tactics

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fighting Guerilla Tactics
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 11 August 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heh, Proaxiom, we've taken that other thread off course a couple times and I want to bring this topic out. Most of the posts on the topic started Here

Post 85 (or around that) is what I'm quoting (from proaxiom):

quote:
Noise: You have some points about terrorist infrastructure. The thing about formal doctrines for fighting guerrillas or terrorists, I don't think there are any.

That was my thought as well... I'm surprised with the amount of 'counter insurgency' battles around the world that there hasn't been more on this topic. Perhaps just nothing released hey? All UN policy assumes 2 uniformed militaries, and I get the feeling so do the tactics being used.

quote:

It's probably drifting off topic, but you can't really defeat a guerrilla group if it's embedded in a supportive population. If you go defensive you lose. If you go offensive then you face the Chinese finger trap of having to inflict civilian casualties that in turn strengthen the guerrillas' support.


And note Israel's key problem right now... Their tactics have so far (in my opinion of course) have strengthened Hizbollah more than it has damaged it. And the same goes with Hamas... Can you blame the population for supporting those that resist their own countries occupation?

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in the case of a terror organization, there is the theory that if you cut off the head (or 2 heads) the remainder will fade out without their morale/spiritual leaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A dubious theory. It doesn't work with Hamas, apparently, since Israel assassinates their leaders all the time. I suspect it would work if the group is truly held together by a handful of strong people, but in a lot of cases the structure might be capable of producing a successor quickly.


Thats where you're being mislead by Israel/American media... Hamas is not a terrorist organization (the same way a group such as Al Qaeda is), nor is Hizbollah. In both cases they've been labelled as terrorists, but given their support in their region and the fact their tactics are to end occupation... Militarily, it would be better to treat these 2 organizations as popular movements as opposed to terrorism. Yes the movements resort to some degree of terrorism, but classifying them in with the same terrorist organizations is incorrect(and ultimately tactics based on this classification are doomed for failure).

A more classic terrorist organization, one that lacks this popular support, I beleive would follow the head severed theory alot more closely.

quote:

As for infrastructure, the problem with terrorists as well as for conventional warfare is that the enemy tends to rebuild it quickly, usually finding alternatives means of getting things done. So you have to keep moving quickly, and accomplish objectives before they have time to reorganize.


Once again, we'll have to seperate views as far as theories go... In Afghanistan, it is possible to sever supply lines and ultimately let opposing forces become desperate for supplies. I doubt, with the lack of support, that an entity such as Al Qaeda wouldn't be too capable of repairing whats lost.

If you go with a group like Hizbollah, this tactic is nearly ineffective. First, we know Hizbollah has been preparing for atleast 6 years for such an incursion. Nasrallah, being the guerilla warfare tactician, will likely have underground (cave based) locations with enough supplies to allow an extended conflict (afterall, Guerilla tactics imply luring your enemy into your territory so you can attack their forces from within)... But that would only be his professional soldier forces. Village reserves which are so far the most common Hizbollah resistance tactic so far are ultimately civilians... Their food and water comes from the same source everyone elses food and water comes from. Attacking their food/supply infrastructure is ultimately attacking the civilians food and supply.

In this case we have a defined tactic that works well with 'traditional terrorists' (if there is such a thing). Problem is Hizbollah doesn't fit into this category.


quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess as a targetable infrastructure, you could be going after the training grounds for the field commanders... With the commanders gone, single troops fighting on there own pose far less threat. But once again, I question how much infrastructure is needed for that and destroying one location just means another one can be setup elsewhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try to go through the mental exercise of building a global terrorist organization, and planning attacks. There are a great many challenges. The big ones are communication and transportation. These are harder than most people give them credit for.


The infrastructure you've referred to here would be much more internationally based wouldn't it? I couldn't imagine how such activities would require Afghan bases to coordinate. Though I may be over simplifying.


quote:

If western governments have half-way decent intelligence, they understand the organizational structure the terrorists use and how they solve the those challenges.


Remember, we are talking about the same intelligence agencies that failed to inform Bush (or any American for that matter) that theres a difference between Arab ethinicities that will cause conflict (or even civil war as Iraq is showing signs of). Did you watch Blair give his 'Our western values will triumph over their barbaric ways!!!' speech a week or so ago? Even a month into this conflict and 3 years into Iraq, and he still has absolutely no clue. And it's not just the leaders that have this horrid miconception... Check out the number of posts in any Lebanon thread for examples of horribly wrong misconceptions that are so predominant in our society that we've stopped questioning them.

Theres 2 conflicting views on the Lebanon-Israel war, and it's interesting to watch the 2 interact. First, theres the morale justification, which requires Hizbollah to be labled as a terrorist organization (much easier to say we bombed terrorist infrastructure and killed terrorists than it is to say we've bombed a local grocery market and killed 10 civilians trying to defend their homeland from another occupation). The second is the military/tactician view (alot less predominant) that requires for a force such as Hizbollah to be effectively combatted, we must drop the view that they are simple terrorists and admit it's a popular movement. Once we've hit that point, the tactics can be changed to ones more suited to combat a popular movement than a terrorist organization.

So it's Moral Justification vs Tactical Prudence... In a free world, the former is much more important afterall and any form of tactics is unfortunately based on whats required for the Morale Justification and not the tactics required to fight an entity such as Hizbollah.

But even then... How do you fight a populist movement without:
A) Inflicting alot of civilian casualites
B) Increase support for the populist movement
C) Suffering large numbers of casualties


quote:

This presents targets. There does appear in the news from time to time information about attempts to cut off their financial sources. I am also certain there is far more being done on the Internet than we are aware of. Terrorists use the Internet for communication; cyberwarfare groups in western governments can target this communication. (Or maybe not: a group of hackers last week-end at DEFCON in Las Vegas demonstrated a really smart way of passing information on the Internet in plain view, and nobody figured it out.) That stuff depends on whether our hackers are better than their hackers -- though so far I haven't seen much to suggest they have that level of technical sophistication.

Western civilization has given rise to techno-nerds... Peeps that are more adept at interacting with computers than human contact from 20+ years of computer interaction (turn your head to smile? :-) ). Hehe, humans specialize and our degree of specialization ultimately determines our advancement in that particular field. The environment here is quite suited for that rise, I don't see the same as of yet from anywhere else (though India is getting there quickly)


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 11 August 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There has been NO nation in human history that has been able to withstand a sustained guerilla action. Especially those actions that have been ideologically based and/or believed sanctioned by 'a higher power'. Why should it be any different today?

However, those governments that have addressed the concerns [generally regarding issues of governance] of the guerillas as possessing some merit and worked to honestly address those concerns have usually been able to put an end to the activity.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633

posted 11 August 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for Free_Radical     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by otter:
There has been NO nation in human history that has been able to withstand a sustained guerilla action.

Greece - 1946-1949
Malaysia - 1948-1960
Peru - 1980's-present

From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 11 August 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That post is huge. I'm not sure I can answer everything in it.

As for whether guerrilla movements can be defeated, I think we can agree that their success depends primarily on their level of popular support. If they are generally supported, I don't think there is anything a conventional army can do to stop them.

If the problem is addressed early enough, in some cases it might be possible to deprive the guerrillas of arms. But if they already have a sufficient number, they can probably more than replace losses by stealing arms from the forces they are attacking.

I'm sure some huge number of military graduate school theses have been written, and theories exist on counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism. For the latter, I'm not sure any have been tested enough to be accepted doctrines. There must be material on counter-insurgency measures though.

Noise, I disagree with you about what terrorism is. Terrorism is a tactic, not a goal. It is the attacking of civilians in order to create fear in the population with the hope of effecting political change. Insofar as they target Israeli civilians, Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. I know the former does it considerably more than the latter. (Aside: In WWII, it seems to me the Allied bombing of Dresden might count as terrorism, I'm surprised I don't see that mentioned more often.)

The distinction about popular support is important, but has to be in context. Hezbollah was not engaging in terrorism when it was attacking Israeli occupation forces in Lebanon. But it is engaging in terrorism when it fires missiles at Israeli cities. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has popular support, in Israel it does not.

Trying to describe Israel as fighting guerrillas is somewhat misleading, because they are not trying to occupy Lebanon. At least, I don't think so; it seems to me that they want to clear Hezbollah out of that 32km buffer and then get an international force to patrol it and keep it clear. Insofar as the Israeli forces remain in Israel, it is not a classical guerrilla conflict. The dynamic may be unique in history.


quote:
The infrastructure you've referred to here would be much more internationally based wouldn't it? I couldn't imagine how such activities would require Afghan bases to coordinate. Though I may be over simplifying.

The bases are only a part of it. Example: Some things as simple as losing phone numbers may be meaningful. If a cell can only communicate with leadership via a known phone number (assumedly land line, due to lack of cellular networks in Afghanistan), and that phone is in a base that is captured, it presents a significant problem.


quote:
humans specialize and our degree of specialization ultimately determines our advancement in that particular field. The environment here is quite suited for that rise, I don't see the same as of yet from anywhere else

Russian organized crime has a very high level of technical sophistication. They hack for profit. It's not implausible that Al-Qaeda could buy information, training, and tools from organized crime groups to put to their own ends.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 11 August 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Trying to describe Israel as fighting guerrillas is somewhat misleading, because they are not trying to occupy Lebanon. At least, I don't think so; it seems to me that they want to clear Hezbollah out of that 32km buffer and then get an international force to patrol it and keep it clear. Insofar as the Israeli forces remain in Israel

CNN wil disagree with the Israeli forces reamining in Israel. A few of their correspondants on the border (with the Israeli troops) where reporting streams of troops going over the border. The statement was (mostly) true a few days ago (they had invaded in single thrusts to towns such as bint Jbiel).

The 32km buffer zone is to be established and occupied by Israel long before an international force would take it from Israel. The second Israel makes the drive to the Tyre and the Latani river, they'll be seeing full on guerilla tactics. Supply line raids, roadside bombs, 'village reserves', and ambushes. We're on the cusp of this becoming a guerilla conflict I beleive. (added: As far as I can see, Nasrallah is prepping for this. He's hiding his forces and only deploying in small numbers for raids. His main soldier force we'll see start popping up once a full scale invasion starts).

quote:
The distinction about popular support is important, but has to be in context. Hezbollah was not engaging in terrorism when it was attacking Israeli occupation forces in Lebanon. But it is engaging in terrorism when it fires missiles at Israeli cities.

I can see what you are stating here... But the rocket attacks from Hizbollah came AFTER Israel attacked Beirut with a missile strike on Gov't headquarters in a possible attempt to slay Nasrallah pre-war (and shelled southern locations). How do we determine (what measures) are used to determine terrorism? If Israel attacked Beirut with missiles and Hizbollah fired rockets back, does that qualify as terrorism? Some of the Lebanon-Israel threads make reference to it... But Hizbollah did very little rocket activity (and what they did can be traced to a provacation for the most case) and most of their attacks came after assaults on Lebanese soil. You mention "Insofar as they target Israeli civilians, Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations". Israel is attacking Lebanese and Palestinian civilians rather non-stop as well as making arbitrary arrests... By that defination of terrorism, isn't Israel a terrorist organization? What exactly defferentiates Israel targetting Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and Hizbollah/Hamas targeting Israeli citizens? Apparently we should be able to come up with a completely solid answer for that question... The entire Western World makes the assumption we have one. Sadly, the only answer I can find that cannot be argued against : Killing Arab civilian = regretable, killing Israeli civilians = terrorism. I'd be happy to replace that answer if/when a better one comes up.

quote:
Noise, I disagree with you about what terrorism is. Terrorism is a tactic, not a goal.

Makes sense... I think I need to redefine how I'm stating this. The point I am trying to raise is theres a large difference between classic terrorist organizations and the Hizbollah/Hamas movement and they need to be treated much differently. Too many tactics and assumptions have gone forward assuming Hizbollah is no more then the 'classic terrorist' organization (the assumption thats required for morale high ground).


Free_radical, thnx for that info. heh, more reading to do.

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

eddited once more to replace one term.

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 11 August 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
Trying to describe Israel as fighting guerrillas is somewhat misleading, because they are not trying to occupy Lebanon.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here--there's no formal connection between guerilla tactics and fighting occupation.

Guerilla warfare works well--or at least, usually better than the alternatives--if fighting occupation if the sides are grossly mismatched, but that's it. The important part is the (local) mismatch, not the objective. Guerille warfare is the tactic, not the objective. It can and is employed in aid of a wide range of objectives.

US special forces in Afghanistan & Iraq, (and probably Iran) are all engaged in guerilla warfare. These were in aid of occupation, not against it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 11 August 2006 07:05 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Noise, I meant I don't think it's Israel's intention to remain in Lebanon. I know they've invaded, but it seems to me they wouldn't want to go back to the pre-2000 situation.

S1m0n, you're right. Normally prolonged guerrilla campaigns are associated with partisan resistance movements, but the same tactics are used by large armies in some situations. We haven't really been talking about that. That makes a difference in how to counter them, it would seem.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca