Which strategy do you think worked well against guerrilla warfare ?

What? This thread is literally about which strategy to use against guerilla fighters, are you actually retarded?

You just said what I said although you are apparently right. Do not bother answering my question, doesn't matter - you may as well be.

I'm pretty sure the apaches weren't that discerning in who they scalped familiar.

>What? This thread is literally about which strategy to use against guerilla fighters,

Yes, which part of this are you having trouble with? Guerillas, by definition, have minimal battlefield presence. They cannot directly command or control territory when a regular force rolls through. At best, they can inflict enough damage and be expensive enough to root out that they're not worth the trouble of obliterating.

The prime considerations of counterinsurgency strategy revolve less around battlefield considerations and more about governance considerations: of creating institutions that can deal with the problems that create guerillas without necessitating bloody and expensive occupations.

If you had EVER read a book about COIN, you would know this, you absolute fucking dipshit.

>it doesn't count as a strategy if it's not on a battlefield

You know fucking nothing about war.

Kek you are disregarding the fact that this thread is specifically about guerilla WARFARE.

>b-b-but you don't know what guerilla warfare is!
>even though this topic is directly related to physical battles
>that's not what "I" am arguing!

:^)

I genuinely can't tell if this is a troll post or there are people who don't understand the difference between strategy and tactics, but still post.

Both, probably.

Creating an apartheid state and fencing in dissidents seems to work well.

Yeah bro, keep arguing semantics, even though semantics has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It's working oh so well.

>Kek you are disregarding the fact that this thread is specifically about guerilla WARFARE.

Do you not understand what the words you use mean? In no guerilla conflict since the term was coined to speak about the Napoleonic wars, was the battlefield issue paramount. When guerillas go up against regular troops, they pretty much lose every single time. It's true across cultures, times, levels of technology, you name it. It turns out conventional armies are pretty good at doing what they're designed to do, and irregular forces not so much.

The strategy of winning a guerilla war is therefore not primarily focused on how you win battles, because if you can't win battles in the first place, you probably aren't fighting a guerilla war, you're probably fighting and losing a conventional one.

You quite literally do not know what guerilla warfare is.

Pretty much this desu

Soviet Union managed to crush anti-communist resistance in Eastern Europe following World War II.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_anti-Communist_insurgencies

How they did it so easily? Because no one cared. As Carl Schmitt said in "Theory of the Partisan", guerrilla warfare is only effective as the military arm of a political operation carried out by a third party that would probably be successful anyway. No third party was interested in anti-communist resistance in Eastern Europe, so they were easily defeated.

The lesson here is that if you want to defeat guerrilla warfare, first you must either delegitimate or kill off the third party which is using them for their own purposes. In the context of most anti-guerrilla operation, that means left-wing intellectuals.

That's why Pinochet was so effective. First he threw the intellectuals, the journalists and the artists out of helicopters. Them he moved against the paramilitary wings of the Chilean communist movements. As it turned out, without a voice in the media to speak for them, they were easily defeated.

Chiang kai-shek should have payed someone to murder Brooks Atkinson, Edgar Snow and Owen Lattimore. Fulgencio Batista should have murdered Herbert Matthews, then they would have won.

The Combined Action Platoon worked pretty well in vietnam.

A 13-man Marine team + 1 Navy Corpsman would be embedded within a town, leading a militia made up of men of the same town.

The militia got the advantage of having the Marines training them. The Marines got the advantage of better intelligence from people protecting their own families; and the civilian leaders got the advantage of having a more stable situation in their town.

Instead of waiting to be attacked, they would go out nightly and set up ambush points on the roads/paths leading to the city.

>Chiang kai-shek should have payed someone to murder Brooks Atkinson, Edgar Snow and Owen Lattimore. Fulgencio Batista should have murdered Herbert Matthews, then they would have won.

While I do agree with a lot of what you say, I'm not so sure about this one.

Go back further, to the "bandit pacification campaigns" before the Japanese came knocking. After a lot of effort, Chiang managed to chase Mao's boys all the way up to Lan-Chow, but even with them cleared out, he never really was able to impose KMT rule, in things like taxation and drawing of manpower, in Guangdong and Jiangxi, their former strongholds.

The KMT was all sorts of fucked up, and even without dealing with foreign influences, they never really had enough control over the Chinese political realm to make what you're saying work.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Atkinson

>While in China, he visited Mao Tse-Tung in Yenan and was captivated by Mao, writing favorably on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) movement, and against the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Shek, which he saw as reactionary and corrupt. After visiting Yenan, he wrote that the CCP political system was best described as an "agrarian or peasant democracy, or as a farm labor party."[2][3] Atkinson viewed the Chinese Communist Party as Communist in name only and more democratic than totalitarian; the Times effusively titled his article Yenan, a Chinese Wonderland City.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews

>In July 1959, Matthews denied that Fidel Castro was communist, saying: "This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist."

Also

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

>In The New York Times on 31 March 1933, Walter Duranty denounced reports of a famine and, in particular, he attacked Gareth Jones, a British journalist who had witnessed the starving in Ukraine and issued a widely published press release about their plight two days earlier in Berlin.

What is the problem with the New York Times? Were they just gullible or legitimately treasonous and pro-communist?

The Green Berets literally exist to do this sort of thing.

Ironically, they're descended from the Jedburg teams the OSS used to help foment insurgency in occupied Europe.

The US realized that the capability they used to fight the Germans might be useful if the Soviets invaded Western Europe, and set up a unit to train anti-communist guerillas in the event of a war in Europe.

And then they realized that most of the guerillas in the world are communist guerillas in capitalist countries, not the other way around.

But yeah, the way to win a counterinsurgency is to think small scale, local, and intimately connected to the local community.

The CAP program also prevented the VC and NVA from using the village for supplies and men, which forced them to carry their provisions with them.

The cap program worked especially well south of Da Nang in the "dodge city" area.

>The US realized that the capability they used to fight the Germans might be useful if the Soviets invaded Western Europe, and set up a unit to train anti-communist guerillas in the event of a war in Europe.

And then local politicians decided to use the resources the U.S. handed to potential anti-communist guerrillas in Europe for their own purposes.

Genocide

cut them off from resupply

if it is not possible to seal off a land border, support your own guerrillas and create a buffer zone where they are constantly fighting each other

if a "buffer zone" would encompass your heartland, become a ruthless totalitarian regime that has no moral qualms about wiping out entire villages to kill 1 sympathizer

If we're talking about fighting a guerrilla war, it wouldn't work to kill off a village just to get one insurgent.

The theory of a guerrilla war is to act in such a way as to force the major power to over-react. So much so that the people can no longer stand the "oppression" of the people in power.

So killing off a village to get one insurgent is exactly what the guerrilla force wants, because it helps to create more guerrillas from those who find such responses intolerable.

>he actually continued
Nice.

I think guerilla warfare is only effective against western nations, do you think an uncuked nation like China would struggle with it? they'd just carpet bomb any region afflicted by it and disregard muh civilians

Do you know how the current regime got into power in China, user?

Second boer war
Malayan emergency
The troubles

Etc

You need mad population though. Burning villages took care of the injuns.

Guerrilla tactic is only has more effective in the modern time. Back then, they didn't give a shit, simply wiped out area to area , massacred and took prisoners, burned the fields.

One of the best possible solutions to Guerilla warfare without going full retard on the populace is to simply burn, loot, and steal, literally anything that could be used to fight against your forces.

Take whatever food you can with you, and burn everything else to the ground.

It might be cruel, but it's a damn sight better than simply killing everyone.

Guerrilla tactic was the norm back then, so much so that the term was only coined in recent times.

Bomb their cities.

If that don't work, get a bigger bomb.

Repeat until no more guerillas.

Caesar rekt the Gauls with that strategy. It's cruel, but it's highly effective

>Guerilla warfare is something new

>Viriatus
>Elamite/Babylonian Assyrian War

Generally speaking its most effective against an army with a long supply line.

A CAP type program + LRRPs supported by aircraft + political and social discrediting of the guerrillas seems like a sensible strategy, especially seeing as how a scorched earth campaign is not feasible in modern times.

Are you saying the bumdestroyed remains of nationalist china was in any shape to carpet bomb anyone?

Why don't you look up how the conflict started in the 30s?

They were enormously stronger than the Chi-coms, and had no compunctions about using excessive force to root them out in the southeast. It wasn't working.

this conversation is surprisingly intellectual for Veeky Forums.

30s China had no capability to turn a region into glass let alone a mountain region outside their supply range

>it helps to create more guerrillas
Not in a total information blackout.

And why are you focusing on absolute power instead of relative power?

>small scale, local, and intimately connected to the local community.
I remember reading a sort of manual recommending this by some special forces guy in Afghanistan. I can't remember much about it except that he called one of the major tribal leaders Sitting Bull.

The nation attacking guerrillas needs to not give a shit about civilian casualties, else the war will be very hard

The Nazis tried this.

For every one of their troops killed by partisans, they'd kill some number of civilians (if memory serves, it ranged from 10 to over 100 depending on the time.)

When the mayor of Minsk was assassinated, they destroyed entire villages and killed everyone they found.

Partisan activity continued throughout the war, and only increased with each new round of violence against the civilian populace.

Humans aren't livestock. If you start killing members of their group, and they have even a tiny chance to fight back, they'll fight back.

When has a total information blackout ever worked?

Yeah, that's why the Soviet Union defeated the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan!

Starve them to death.

A recent victory of a nation over Guerrilas was Sri Lanka forcing the Tamil Tigers to disband, and what the Tamil commanders admitted was that irrigation and water sources in the North of the island were completely diverted, cutting off food and water in Tamil-controlled lands.

This forced the Tamils to raid nearby cities for food and water, where the military gladly met them there and cut them down. This repeated for years until the Guerrilas were facing mass death from starvation due to their isolation from food and water.

And so we come back to needing to defeat the third party using the guerillas

Every guerilla force since the Napoleonic wars has gotten aid from outside forces. Every. Single. One. It's part of the game. You can't hide behind that when your idiot premise turns out to not actually correlate with success.

in every single autocratic state that has existed in history

Your deluded if you think a state has ever had the ability to totally control the flow of information

Fireforce and whatever else Rhodesia did

though even a good counter insurgency campaign will backfire if your country has turned into a sanctioned international pariah

>Every guerilla force since the Napoleonic wars has gotten aid from outside forces. Every. Single. One.
Mau Mau.

soviets did. and they did it so well that majority of people doesn't even remember that eastern europe was full of resistance insurgencies well to the 50's.

It should be pointed out that it is an order of magnitude easier to prevent an insurgency than to stop one once it has begun.

It's the equivalent of getting gangrene on damaged limb.

It's bad, but you should really focus on whatever cause circulation to cut out in the first place.

I've never really looked at the Mau Mau in depth, but I was sure that the Soviets sent them some aid.

>you're*
I am not deluded then as I do not believe a state has ever had the ability to totally control the flow of information.

What they can do is limit people's movements and control the media making it difficult for an insurgent to infiltrate far, spread the news that a village was wiped out due to the presence of an insurgent like himself, be believed and convince illiterate agricultural laborers suffering from malnutrition to become fighters for a cause that is likely little more righteous than the autocratic state.

When fighting the gorilla you must use the gorilla. Only the most elite of the Navy seals can take back der nacht.

for starters there is a difference between strategy, operations, and tactics. Once the baby fat disappears, you should try actually reading about counterinsurgency theory. Or just war in general. Or you are just an idiot which is more likely. Delete your post.

lets start from the beginning, faggot. Have you ever heard of two fellows named Sun Tzu or Carl Von Clausewitz?

You're an idiot

Guerrillas get a lot of help (supplies, intel and hiding etc.) from small settlements around the enemy army (villages, small towns etc.) the quickest and easiest way would be to purge entirely these small settlements until they have no hiding place and force them into the open where they'll get torn to shreds in a direct assault by your army

Like I said, not the best way but the quickest and easiest

>implying anyone has actually won against guerilla's.
USAyyy
UKayyy
And many others ayyy.

Guerilla warfare was literally how tribalnignogs fought vs. stronker opponents.

It is as old as time itself. Guerilla warfare was just coined in the early 19th century thanks to Spics fighting Napoops. The norm was large-ass battles at the time, and the Guerillas didn't play that shit. Hence the name, "to make the war small (Guerilla = little war).

In Brazil the military regime lasted because a communist guerrilla was formed in the amazonian jungle. They were supposed to be in power just to throw away the socialist president and then bring new elections, but since the guerrilla started, they saw there was no other way but to keep the government in their hands.

But the fact is: The government repressed the uprising so well, that nowadays people think they stayed in power just "because yes".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araguaia_Guerrilla_War

Also, a strong "anti-whatever their ideology is" propaganda will help their stagnation.

Yeah, but what if the third party is Russia, China or the US?

This.

It worked well enough for the British when dealing with the Boers.

Let's just look at two modern autocratic states to see how well it works.

In North Korea, all aspects of media and education are controlled. And you can be arrested and killed if you are found in possession of a modified radio or an unsanctioned newspaper.

The result? There is a heavy black market in modifying radios to pick up western stations; and there is a very large barter system going on for SD cards with western and American movies on them.

Result: though the people play lip service in public to the regime, they have easy and ready access to non-approved information from a variety of sources.

Iran: Here they have slightly less control of the media, but they also have the morality police who like to keep everyone under their thumb.

In Iran there is a big black market for illegal satellite dishes, and you see them all over which allow the citizen to get western information.

From the photographs sneaked out of nazi concentration camps, to the flow of back-channel information within the Soviet Union, to modern live streams which show a narrative different from what the MSM has broadcast, history has shown again and again that it is impossible to achieve total information control

kys m8
>semantics
>literally two different words with different meanings

>Creating a centrifugal Islamic force that defames the PLO and poisoning Yasser Arafat seems to work well.
Fix'd

Britian has done it multiple times.

Not really guerillas

yeah alright its not like they had effective command and supply from the NKVD

Well speaking as an Irishman, the IRA was "defeated" in a sense, because they lost public support. The key to defeating guerilla forces isnt to blow them up, it's to have your soldiers walking around the town and talking to people. The brits were welcomed as protectors with tea and cakes in the streets by Irish Catholics at first, then they shot civilians and overnight, the entire nation turned on them

Speaking as a northern Republican with family where served in the IRA, the IRA was "defeated" because the political leadership was able to come to mutual agreement with the British government that the ongoing stalemate was doing nothing for either community, the IRA knew it could not expel the Brits physcially and the Brits knew there could be no military decimation of the IRA. So they traded their military power for political in the new power sharing government where most Republican's now feel an investment in peaceful strategy

The notion of "honeymoon" period is overstated, some catholics welcomed them because it was naively believed they were a better alternative to sectarian police forces, the reality was they were there to back them up and were no different

>speaking as someone coming from an extremely biased view point
FTFY
The IRA lost because they killed innocent civilians and most Catholics didn't want anything to do with them anymore, the IRA made peace because they were already fading away

The IRA were finally defeated by the Omagh bomb and 9/11, violent terrorism became unfashionable

>secure the borders (actually)
>have air and naval superiority and tons of money
>Perform search and destroy missions with the help of locals/green berets

>>"you are speaking as someone coming from an extremely biased view point!!!!!111"
>does the exact same thing in return

Much like 9/11, British intelligence knew about the Omagh bomb before it happened and let it happen because it helped them.

>it's the Brits fault I killed those civilians
>the IRA gud bhoys dey dindu nahin

>Implying it's possible to come from any POV without bias

Sinn Fein's political base was always small and radical, the reality is the leadership was pushed towards the peace route under Adam's since the late 80's because of many factors (war weariness from the "long war" strategy, willingness from British government for negociations, oppurtunity for political tradeoffs).

THat was the "Real IRA" which split from the Provos for the very reason it was commited to decommisioning and peace. The "Real IRA" still exists and is still a threat in N.Ireland

They had at least two informers making the bomb, they let it happen in such a way as to kill as many people as possible when it was IRA policy to give warning and not actually kill anybody.

Nigger please the IRA has always been a pissweak joke of a terrorist organisation outside of your belfast telegraph. This has been true since the 1920's and its especially true now. What have they done recently...absolutely nothing.

I'm the northern Republican and I'm actually from Omagh. I think that's a conspiracy, no doubt both Irish and British security forces had information on the bomb but I think it happened under their watch out of pure incompetance rather than purposeful malice to propel the peace process forward. Omagh council is in fact a republican stronghold and still retains a majority SF representation

whatever you say. I'm not here to engage in polemics, just thought this thread might actually be worthy of discussion

Ok uncle tim

It's all practically impossible.
Even in Soviet Union everyone knew about super-secret events like this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkuta_uprising
or this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre

okay

Absolute and total war

Failing that, spend tons of money trying to outlast them while tip toeing around

Conialism.

Colonial forces had to fight Guerillas all the time. The Italians had problems with Guerillas in Libya prior to Mussolini's rise.

The thing is, guerilla movements are pretty easy to solve, and just require draconian methods to prevent their continuation. Create a massive fence across the desert to prevent troop resupply (Italians under Mussolini did this).

Starve out dissidents, round up villages, hold civilians hostage, decimate hostages when military action occurs, etc.

If you're draconian enough, the same way the colonial powers subjected forces throughout the third world, you can pretty successfully intimidate a population.

The only important thing is is that you actually have the military strength to enforce and back yourself up.

Nigga, some Colonial empires fell due to guerilla war.

Spain is a famous victim of this.

a true master of the art