Finally, a solution (Iraq)

[Couture]

Can we sell it to the Chinese?

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,
In an asymetric conflict, counter insurgency measures are some of the most effective actions you can take. In Vietnam, some of themost successful actions against the VC were mounted, not by the military, but by indiginous forces armed and trained by the Green Berets in conjunction with the Cia.

Any evidence for this? Does 'most successful' mean 'successful' or just 'less of a failure'? Given that Vietnam was, by most assessments, a failure for the US, on what basis do you say one component (Phoenix?) was a success (or more of one)?

As to 'counterinsurgency measures' being effective... doesn't that depend what they are? The 'Battle of Algiers' shows some apparently effective measures, such as torture; it also shows the overall French failure to pacify or 'keep' Algerias.

There are, of course, occasional examples of 'counterinsurgency' where it apparenlty worked. Malaysia is often cited. Perhaps also in the Philippines in the early years of the 20th century; US succeeded after several years of killing lots of civilians (sympathizers and aiders).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Pure, the only truly successful counter insurgency measure that comes to mind is "delenda Carthago". I don't think even the US government could argue for it, though.

Not yet, anyway.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly,
In an asymetric conflict, counter insurgency measures are some of the most effective actions you can take. In Vietnam, some of themost successful actions against the VC were mounted, not by the military, but by indiginous forces armed and trained by the Green Berets in conjunction with the Cia.

Any evidence for this? Does 'most successful' mean 'successful' or just 'less of a failure'? Given that Vietnam was, by most assessments, a failure for the US, on what basis do you say one component (Phoenix?) was a success (or more of one)?

As to 'counterinsurgency measures' being effective... doesn't that depend what they are? The 'Battle of Algiers' shows some apparently effective measures, such as torture; it also shows the overall French failure to pacify or 'keep' Algerias.

There are, of course, occasional examples of 'counterinsurgency' where it apparenlty worked. Malaysia is often cited. Perhaps also in the Philippines in the early years of the 20th century; US succeeded after several years of killing lots of civilians (sympathizers and aiders).

Effective means just that Pure. effective. In this case, it's qualified with a more effective. I did not intimate final success was achieveable though any measures. It is more effective, however, to eliminate insurgents on the ground, than to lob 500lbs general purpose ordinance into a city setting.

The Mung were among the most effective fighters against the VC. In sectors where they operated, the incidence of insurgent activity fell off to almost nil. If you read carefully, you will find that the majority of their actions actually came against the NVA near the end. Within that tiny capsule, they were not only effective, but successful. That comes with a major caveat. They operated in sectors near their villages, enjoyed local support from many of the civilians around them, and as a persecuted minority, they were already adept at insurgency tactics.

Can you win a war with these tactics? I wuld tend to believe you could. The problem with the current tactics we are employing is that you are basically trying to do surgery with a shotgun. there is a small percentage of the populace who actually take up arms and are fighting. If you kill 100 the odds are good you got some insurgents, but they are better you killed a lot of innocents.

I would direct you to a book on the Mung, written by a green Beret "advisor", but I haven't been able to locate it this morning. It isn't in the right place and I have forgotten the title. If I come across it in my wanders I'll let you know, it's really good, if somewhat partisan.

 

[vogueboy]

No, the insurgents use these tactics beacuse they are the only ones avialable to them. If they had an air force, or heavy artillery or armor, they would use them. They resort to improvised munitons and soveit era weapons beacuse that's what they have. If you think they don't wish they culd kill on the scale the US does, you are being very naive.

It is a simple precept however, that the only tactics that are truly effective against them are the same tactics they use. It was recognized a long time back that to counter small unit tacts by a partisan force you had to use small unit tactics. Trying to police Iraq with heavy armor is about as effective as posting a speed limit and having all the ploce cars without radar guns. Simply put, it isn't effective.

Isn't that what the CIA trained Bin-Laden to do against the Soviets in Afganistan?

OK, what's going on here (?)

The US has an already strong military, political and corporate/industrial presence in Iraq.

We know the US wants to change the Middle Eastern region into their version of a Democracy.

And they want to go about it by putting in place more military power in the form of Death Squads to quash a few rebels/freedom fighters/insurgents at the expense of more civillian casualties.

I thought that they wanted to get out of Iraq and let them self-govern. Alas, we know that the US will still be there intrenched for the next half century.

And they want to do this by deploying Death Squads?

Yep, looks like it. yep.