h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning all,

This post should probably be on the MIddle East Crisis thread , but I thought that was too full already.....

Since Vietnam, Sudan, current Iraq war , Israel in Lebanon and Russia in Chechnya have we learned that firepower of itself is not sufficient?

The days of the big battleships are now dead and gone. Have guerilla fighters who are fighting for something they passionately believe in, rather than conscripted of professional soldiers, proved that military might and muscle is almost an irrelevance.

Should the super powers now begin to concentrate on transportation of highly mobile guerilla style troops , like those used effectivly by the UK in Malaya.

Brute force doesn't seem to be standing up well does it?

Novo

Depends on your persepctive.

An overwhelming show of force *did* win the war in Iraq. What it hasn't been able to do is secure the peace. I suspect, from the pictures I've seen that the Russians would say the same about Chechnya.

I suspect it has less to do with lessons learned or the way troops fight - by the end of Vietnam, the US had an army that was very well versed in guerilla tactics.

It has to do with will to win. The Viet Cong won because they were fighting for there homeland against a country that (en masse) didn't give a jiggers about the domino theory or any other aspect of US State Department policy. They just wanted the boys back home.

Which Is , I think, what is slowly happening in Iraq. Given that there are no WMD's (excuse no. 1), that terrorism is clearly up (excuse no. 2) and that the Iraqi's clearly aren't really interested in our involvement any more (excuse no. 3), the public at large are just getting sick to the back teeth of it.

It's a complicated issue, but to honest do you really think an 'all out military victory' in Lebanon is actually possible? Even if the Israeli's succeed in whatever their plan is, do you think the peace can be sustained now?

What saddens me is the short sightedness of the polticians. Israel was established by a terrorist movement, our own conflict with the IRA was eventually resoved by negotiation and I am sure there are many more examples.

The step change in PaxAmerica was America's reaction to 911. I am not condoning any sort of terrorist activity but there was a marked difference in how we reacted to 7th July and not just in scale. I suppose it was because we had endured the IRA bombing campaign and further back the Bltz.

Maybe it's just national phycse or maybe it's to do with American isolationism that previously assumed that anything they did in the world wouldn't have domestic consequences. The result was fertile ground for the already in place neocons and the Zionist lobbies. The results we see this morning.

Seems to my largley uniformed mind that three things are now key (and perhaps always has been) in a guerilla war. Intelligence, intelligence, and intelligence.

To try to use an uncontroversial example - consider Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham. The one thing that the Sheriff lacks is decent intelligence - he doesn't know exactly where Robin's base is and he doesn't know the terrain. The sheriff's men and tax collectors blunder from ambush to ambush because they don't know the terrain, don't know Robin's tactics, and don't learn from their mistakes. Given the ease with which Robin's men don disguises, the sheriff and his men don't know what the outlaws look like. And as for hearts and minds, no hope - even if you are Alan Rickman.

Slightly flippant example, I know...

Hi Novo

Add Somalia to that list as well. But I don't think this is a new phenomena. How about the German's fighting off the Romans? The Romans held all of Gaul for a long time, but rarely (if ever) held all of Germany.

Vietnam is a good example. I think we have to look at historical context as well. The Vietnamese had been fighting "superpowers" for thousands of years. Same with Korea - they were used to fighting off Japan and China for ~600 years. Take Afghanistan - they fought off Alexander the Great through the Russians. The reason they're probably not more violent against the current US troops is b/c they just aren't there.

Then take the western hemisphere. There wasn't really effective resistance against the Europeans. Was that b/c natives from the western hemisphere weren't used to having to fend off encrouaching empires?

Since this phenomena is not really new, it doesn't seem to indicate the end of conventional warfare. We're just seeing a lull in the amount of conventional large scale warfare where two countries really duke it out head to head for a sustained period of time. So the focus has shifted. I think ideally we would learn from this that our conventional warfare tools are ineffective against guerilla style troops, and that we need to develop the capability of fighting guerilla warfare. Maybe that means a reduction in the conventional warfare ability, but I don't think it calls for elimination.

But I think you raise a larger point. Maybe there is no way for an invading force to fight guerilla tactics of defenders.

Regarding the New World, there was a fairly serious technological difference (large ships, horses, swords, firearms, etc) and the not insignificant issue of imported diseases which in many places could have been pretty devastating even on their own.

>There wasn't really effective resistance against the Europeans.<

By whom? Other Europeans?

I think maybe the distinction has to be drawn here between an 'Empire building invasion' (which is admittedly the most common type of invasion scenario) and invasions which happen as part of long term population migration (and lets be honest the last one in Britain was in 1066 and that stuck pretty well).

The difficulty with fighting wars for 'geo-political gain' is that it's *incredibly* difficult to persuade a bloke whose thousands of miles from home that getting his arse blown off is in his real interests (and this goes right back to the Romans and beyond. The Egyptians cured the problem by belting their neighbours, taking all their stuff and going home. Why occupy a complete dump in North Africa when your own country is a paradise on Earth?) whereas repelling an invasion of that type doesn't have similar dilemmas - if you are fighting to defend your land and family, then extreme acts are more likely.

I think the Vietnam context is a bit skewed as well - they had been occupied for nearly a milenia. It was the shifting geo-political map afforded by French weakness in the area that afforded them the opportunity to throw out the occupiers. Once they knew they could see off a western power due to the French retreat, it was highly unlikely, in retrospect that the US were going to be able to hold it either.

Potholer, isn't that the whole poist of assymetric warfare? Are you saying the Viet-cong were on an equal technological footing with the US?

Blues, what do you mean by "By whome? Other Europeans?"

I agree with the population migration idea, but wasn't the initial interaction of Europeans with the Western Hemisphere one similar to your description of Egypt? Loot the place and head for home?
And isn't that directly relevant to Israel? People are migrating to Israel, and it is desperately short of land, so it expands (nominally for security reasons).

Re: vietnam, here's a paragraph from every hootooer's least favorite source:
"What is known for sure is that for most of the period from 111 BC to the early 10th century, it was under the rule of successive Chinese Dynasties. Sporadic independence movements were attempted, but were quickly extinguished by Chinese forces. In 939, the Vietnamese defeated Chinese forces at the B&#7841;ch &#272;&#7857;ng River and gained independence. They gained complete autonomy a century later. During the rule of the Tr&#7847;n Dynasty, it defeated three Mongol attempts of invasion by the Yuan Dynasty. Feudalism in Vietnam reached its zenith in the Lê Dynasty of the 15th century, especially during the reign of Emperor Le Thanh Tong. Between the 11th and 18th centuries, the Vietnamese expanded southward in a process known as nam ti&#7871;n (southward expansion). They eventually conquered the kingdom of Champa and much of the Khmer empire. The independent period ended in the mid-19th century, when the country was colonized by France"

So they overthrew the chinese over 1000 years ago...and then kept them out, and fought of the Mongolian empire. Seems like a pretty good track record to me.

You said:

>There wasn't really effective resistance against the Europeans.<

By whom? Other Europeans? ie who did not mount effective resistance against the Europeans? There appears to be no subject to your sentence.

I take your point about Vietnam, but I think it's a tangential point at best. Vietnam was lost because the US failed to acknowledge the dangers posed by a less well equipped but much more mobile and determined fighting force. That it need never have happened in the first place, as Westmoreland realised with hindsight just makes it tragic in the extreme.

And I see your point against Israel. And yes, the Arabic world needs to get used to the idea that Israel is there to stay, though of course it differs from a 'traditional immigration style invasion (like the Francks in Gaul) of the Serbs in Eastern Europe) because it's an artificially induced immigration for the geo-political convenience of The Western powers, particularly Britain.

Possibly the worst of both worlds, particualrly in light of the fact that it was a state induced into being by terrorism, which isn't a good way to encourage it's neighbours to understand that violence won't solve their problems as well.

Think the Mongols would've been stretched pretty thin by the time they got all the way to Vietnam.

But I suppose one way you could look at the problems conventional warfare is currently having as one positive: it clearly demonstrates a certain amount of military restraint. If the US and allies were prepared to, they have any number of weapons it could use to obliterate settlements and any enemies hiding within them (which would be, incidentally, rather like Mongol tactics). That this is not happening is some credit.

I'm not sure how much credit any soldier deserves *or would ask for* for maintaining some basic concern for civilians.

"And isn't that directly relevant to Israel? People are migrating to Israel, and it is desperately short of land, so it expands (nominally for security reasons)."


Lovely, so blinkered and one sided it is hard to reply. No mention of the incarceration of Gaza, no mention of the need to allow the displaced Palestinian refugees to return. Of course there are masses of land in Gaza the armoured bulldozers have seen to that.

I fail to see how stating that the creation of Israel has created a de facto 'immigration invasion' denies those facts.

I don't believe that was what Arnie intended and it's not helpful to state that he did.

To many people on this board assume that if you state something A that is a neagtion of Point B. It isn't. It's merely making Point A.

Thanks Blues. I thought if anything I was stating that Israel's "security" concerns were really just an excuse for expansion, and I don't really see how stating that supports Israel or its actions in any way.

I see what you mean about the missing subject. I meant to say that the native americans didn't have an effective resistance against the European explorers/settlers. And I was asking was that b/c they didn't have the experience of having to fight off empires.

Potholer, the Mongolians way have run out of steam at Vietnam, after fighting through china, but I find that surprising given they made it through russia without running out of steam...

I don't recall mentioning the Mongols?

sorry, my mistake.

Blues (do you prefer Hostile now?)

When you say the state of Israel was established using terrorism, are you referring the tactical term (attacks on civilian populations, hit and fade strikes, etc.)?

Morning all,

I find it fascinating that ( as usual) my simple opening post premise has been hi-jacked by you guys into the usual swapping of historical knowledge etc etec.

I was not interested in history, other than to illustrate my point that the mighty Israeli Army , armed technically and in material terms by the US , has failed against a guerilla organisation.

Given that it is now self evidently true - was my premise that current military 'thinking' by the West is outmoded and useless? Doesn't the disruption at UK airports this weekend , by a non-event, merely the possibility of one, demonstrate that the use of heavy armour, and airpower are outmoded?

Does it strike no-one that WW£ will be fought on the internet?

Novo

Morning Novo,

Information and its stablemate disinformation have always ben powerful weapons. What obviously has changed is the access to and generation of that arsenal. The Internet, 24 hour rolling news, text messages and satelite tv have replaced the native runner and the gun boat.

As you say the effective use of that weapon can be seen in the chaos at our airports caused by letting it be known that 20 odd people had been arrested for maybe and I stress maybe plotting to blow up aircraft.

Unfortunately for John Reid the info-ile has exploded in his hands in so much as the publicity generated serves to publicise the would be terorists cause and has caused massive disruption and costs to the UK.

Also I think the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the American/British invasion of Iraq would have been much worse and longer if the World wasn't able to see what was going on. Imagine the reaction if live pictures of the Somme were broadcast each night. I don't think WW1 would have gone so long and I doubt Kitcheners recruiting would have been so effective.

'Outmoded' isn't the same thing as 'not universally applicable'.

If you want to physically stop an identifiable body of hostile people moving around (or kill them if they do move around), aircraft can be extremely effective.
However, 'identifiable' is the key - if faced with people hiding amongst civilians.

It's *kind* of obvious that faced with a superior force of numbers, especially one supposedly playing by certain rules, people may well resort to irregular warfare and *not* playing by the rules - it's been happening for centuries, if not millenia.
*Whatever* you do in military terms, if there are limits to what you *will* do, people will react to those limitations.

The interesting thing is possibly what things *cause* people to react against miltary forces, or what causes military forces to be in the places where people are likely to react.