tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post3921304758864908694..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: About theories and their application in generalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-38455074737428668472011-04-08T03:02:22.052+02:002011-04-08T03:02:22.052+02:00Disregarding "accidental guerrillas" is ...Disregarding "accidental guerrillas" is just as silly as pretending that civilian casualties automatically result in "accidental guerrillas."<br /><br />Whether or not people turn to violence against a government or occupying power obviously depends on myriad motivational factors. Killing civilians obviously does not win many friends, but it can intimidate or terrorize people into cooperation or acquiescence. <br /><br />Terror works if it is followed by a measure of control. Hama was retaken by the Syrian government because it committed a massacre but then followed on by occupying the area and flooding it with police and military forces to rout out the rebels. The same happened in southern Iraq in 1991. <br /><br />Terror fails if it is followed on by nothing or with ineffective attempts at control. Bombing a village but not engaging with it or following on to provide some level of control over it does nothing to discourage violence, but instead can encourage it through "accidental guerrillas". Libya 2011 is an excellent example where the violence of Gadhafi's security forces in the eastern part of the country resulted in a violent backlash by the population. OTOH, in western Libya where his security forces had more resources and supporters, Gadhafi has managed to maintain a level of control through terror.Tequilahttp://smallwarsjournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-79769429330076227582011-04-04T14:34:58.325+02:002011-04-04T14:34:58.325+02:00Defending "sloppy" thinking as "its...Defending "sloppy" thinking as "its complicated, you dont understand" is not science.<br />Or even critical thinking.<br /><br />I'm sure there are people who have been motivated to fight ISAF because ISAF accidentaly bombed their brother/mother, but to argue that it is a majority is just verbage unless you can come up with some pretty solid facts on numbers. And those, I havent seen.<br /><br />I have seen numbers showing that most of Iraqs insurgents were simply poor and looking for work.<br />If you needed $50 a month for food, and someone was willing to pay you $50 for fireing an RPG at a Humvee, most men did it.<br /><br />One particular example of the Hydra Theory that tends to stick with me, as an example of extreme stupidity, goes roughly as follows.<br /><br />There was a US Base, linked by road to a US base, and every week, there was a supply run.<br />This Supply run came under harrasment fire from a heavy machine gun.<br />No one was injured, and the convoys just ignored for the better part of a year.<br /><br />Then one night, a USMC company assaulted the village by Helicopter, with gunship support, and killed some 15 men who resisters.<br /><br />The article then stated as fact, that the families of those 15 men, not all of whom were involved in the original shootings, would hate the US and go suicide bombing.<br /><br />Thats onme possible outcome of course, but another, just as likely outcome, is that that village, and all the villages nearby, will take a very stern line on people shooting Americans, because they are the ones who will suffer the wrath.<br /><br />And of course, if the "Taliban" are manning these positions and killing any villagers who resist, the US is unlikely to be high on anyones priorities...<br /><br />There might be some "Accidental Guerillas", in fact, I'll go as far as to say there are some, but compared to mercanaries, bandits, ideological fighters and local independant forces, I refuse to accept they are significant.Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.com