Beat guerrilla warfare without killing civilians

Oppressive measures like this is the entire point of terrorism and guerilla warfare. You're just radicalizing the public against your regime.
The measures your proposing will only work alongside

Considering how both sides in WW2 were so indifferent to civilian death, not really.

The only real solution
youtube.com/watch?v=8CP9dg38cAI

This can work in an european country since the population's demands in an industrialized country are more straightforward and acceptable. As I mentioned, I assumed we're talking about 3rd worlders. Do you think an occupational force can give the insurgents and its supporter population sharia law/agrarian communism/banana republicanism as they want? It kills the whole point of being there.

The only way to beat guerillas is getting a 10-1 troop ratio and spending 50 military mana to institute harsh treatment

>You're just radicalizing the public against your regime.

If the Philippinnes taught us anything, eventually we'll make them suffer enough that they'll deradicalize just to survive.

1. Have lots of troops
2. Post troops in all cities, towns and villages. Do not post troops in people's houses. Ideally post them around locations like the town hall.
3. Troops should adopt native customs and live as close to the civilians as possible.
4. Train a native constabulary
5. Do public works projects. Improve sanitation. Build roads.
6. Extend an open hand to native collaborators
7. Prevent insurgents from killing your native collaborators

Congrats! You should be well on your way to winning hearts 'n' minds!

>Beat guerrilla warfare without killing civilians
What's the point?

The best way to do that is to consider all civilians enemy soliders

That sure worked in Afganistan and Iraq...

For guerilla warfare to work they need the support of a significant portion of the population. Therefore killing, interning, or deporting "civilians" can very much be justified.

1. There were not enough troops to cover the whole country
2. Troops were kept in barracks far away from actual town centers
3. Troops did not adopt native customs, nor live close to civilians
4. This was attempted, results were poor
5. This was attempted, results were good
6. Native collaborators were kept at arms distance
7. The security of native collaborators was not guaranteed

For various reasons the US Army was unable to follow its own advice.

>unable to follow its own advice
Just like communism, something might look good on paper but at the same time not be applicable irl.

Started working pretty well starting with The Surge. Then Obama took office and put the kibosh on that.

Germans did in it Serbia with "100 serbs for 1 dead german" tactic.

There was no partisans in Serbia till the russians liberated them after that. Unlike in Croatia

I meant they beat guerrila warfare, not not killing civilians*

loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/afghanistan-date-set-for-parliamentary-and-district-council-elections/

Don't be an idiot an have a centralized regime in a rural place. Local and state representation is where real business is done and corruption is ended.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Hamlet_Program
Rounding up the rural folk can often work against you

This, generally the trick this is villainize them and wipe them out while they are still a tiny hated minority. Let it drag on too long, and eventually a critical mass of the civilians will sympathize with them, at which point you're fucked. Everyone you kill just ends up converting a dozen more.

Double points if you can villainize them sufficiently to get the civilians to turn against them and kill them on their own with no direct intervention from you, beyond perhaps supply and support. The more alien your culture is to theirs the harder this is, but its, for instance, pretty damned easy to get the US populous to turn against a terrorist faction within the US, even if it's white. Of course, the more economically stable the nation is and the more compliant and comfy the civilians, the easier this is is.

But should that fail, once you've reached that tipping point where your general approval rating is in the shitter among more than say a quarter of the populous, the entire nation, and eventually, the entire region, turns against you. You can't "win" from there, nor avoid killing civilians, but you can bomb the entire area into the stone age to prevent them ever becoming a real threat, and perhaps secure areas with critical resources and infrastructure.

Once that happens, unless you're willing to replace their population with a significant swath of your own, and basically annex them, eventually, you're going to lose, even if it may take decades.

That's the problem with invading distant foreign lands - the natives have to live there, but you, eventually have to go home. No amount of military force or effort negates that simple fact.

Thus, the successful solution to guerrillas almost never a military one - it's primarily a matter of managing public perception.

You can never give someone as much as the other guy can promise.

Perhaps, but you can make your promises more convincing than theirs.

...assuming you don't have a history of constantly abandoning and backstabbing your allies, like certain nations do. Even then, it might just be a matter of making promises to the right people.

Agreed, but creating divisions within the guerrilla forces also helps - which is generally fairly easy given the nature of such rabble. Get the guerrillas to fight the guerrillas.

Albeit, this gets confusing when you end up with multiple nations funding multiple groups of guerrillas, each with their own motivations, and it turns into a proxy civil war clusterfuck.

Depends on what your end goal is though - if you don't care about the stability of the nation in question, and simply want to stop a certain faction from rising to power, this is fine.

>kill civilians
>still can't beat gorilla warfare

>It ain't me starts playing...

put birth control in the water, bring in colonist who drink pure water. wait a hundred years.

To beat the guerrilla you must become the guerrilla. Train specific troops for such warfare. Prioritize troops on the grounds instead of DUDE JUST BOMB THEM LMAO american way.

dont want to nitpick but the infrastructure programs just ended in embezzlement 90% of the time

That seems like something the Chinese would do.

But then you have whole corps of psychotic killing machines you can't bring back home because they will never be able to integrate with society again.

Good analysis, except the tamil tigers getting btfo shows that establisyment can win a decades long guerilla conflict. Same eith algeria in the 1990s. That said the firdt instance was a whole ethnic group

>without

You're never going to beat it that way.

It's fine, they were bred only to die on the battlefield.

People say that killing civilians will just turn the populace against you, but if you do it at such a scale that it's considered a crime against humanity, you'll be surprised how quick they back off.

Impossible, Guerrilla warfare revolves around using noncombatants as communication lines among other resource providers. The opposing side using a direct attack method would resort to brutality so long as they use a direct method.

Well, yes, but if, for instance, the US had carpet bombed Vietnam with nukes, while they would have won the war against the guerrillas, enough of the world would have turned against them that they would lost the Cold War (which also, obviously, wouldn't have stayed cold long enough for the USSR to collapse).

But it depends on what your goals are. If the goal is to change hearts and minds, military solutions are generally a no-go, but if you just want to introduce perpetual instability, you do have the options of having others do your dirty work for you. (eg. ) And, of course, straight up annexation is always an option, though that requires moving your own civilians in to be maintained.

This is so laughably wrong though

>carpet bombed Vietnam with nukes

You don't need to be so fancy, just force collective punishment on the people for the actions of the guerillas. Do what we did in , where the conditions were so harsh in the prison camps that the guerillas had no choice but to give up for the sake of their own conscience.

I dunno man, we were pretty fucking brutal - that was part of the problem. You may scare some guerillas, but at the same time, you just turn more of the populous against you and either bolster their ranks or cause more factions to rise up. By the middle of that war, we had just as many non-VC shooting at us as VC.

Besides, the flips were factionary as hell to begin with, both socially and geographically, and we were doing them more good than harm for most of them. Most had no way to organized, or even know what was happening to them... and in the end, the goal was to annex them, and we had to move huge swaths of our own civilian population to do that, which in turn made life better for everyone that mattered. Annexation was never the goal in Vietnam, we just wanted them to hate commies, and instead, taught them to hate us, along with large swaths of the whole region that had previously been majority anti-communist.

>but at the same time, you just turn more of the populous against you and either bolster their ranks or cause more factions to rise up.
That's just more people to throw in the camps

Unless your army is nearly as large as the populous (which it pretty much never is), that's eventually a losing war of attrition. It works for awhile, but eventually, you gotta go home. To defeat a guerrilla force in that fashion, you gotta do it fast.