Article and comments.
Posted on 08/23/2017 7:19:07 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Historically speaking has any Empire won a war of counter insurgency? I'm hearing this talk about Afghanistan, and do not know the answer?
I think the odds are not good when you think of the American Revolution, Vietnam, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.. and an added bonus the "rules of engagement".
For the record, I am very strong President Trump supporter. Love the guy and will support him 100%.
Just looking for good answers. Thanks!
You might include British operations in the Trans-Jordan region after World War I.
In the early 1970s there was a book, red covered BTW, that explored the total British experience post World War I dealing with insurgency in Arabia, Africa, Aaden, and Malaysia. Note the insurgents were African Tribesmen, Arabs, and Malaysian/Chinese so this covers a wide range of ethic backgrounds.
It closed with the author’s (A British Army General officer) hopes that the Americans would succeed in out efforts in Indo-China which would put its publishing date in the late 1960s.
I think was titled “Counter-Insurgency” but it disappeared from my personal library decades ago so I can not be more specific. More in a PM when (if) I can find a small publishing company that specialized in military subjects.
“England defeated the Boers in 1900.”
Through the use of concentration camps for the families of the insurgents.
Hitler’s role model.
Article and comments.
Except that one side was foreign lead and funded.
So I recognize that to fit the definition of an insurgency.
Yes. In the 20th century, of 10 insurgencies, the government won 7 (losing Vietnam and China).
From “Dirty Little Secrets About Vietnam”
It took an average of 10 years (Malaya was about 12, our successful counterinsurgency in the Philippines was about 13, and should be a role model, anywhere).
The Jewish state has not been continuous.
The Roman state, in part, has been in continous operation for 2,770 years. It still continues in the form of the Vatican and Catholic church. In Roman society religion was a state function and its offices held by state officials. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion he basically moved out the old gods for a new one. Christians filled the pre-existing state offices, which became the Catholic Church.
The Roman state, in part, has been in continous operation for 2,770 years.
Someone has ruled over Rome since it started, usually, but not always in Rome (Avignon). Constantinople had the better case as the successor State of Rome until 1453, and I would put a claim for the Vatican on part with the Russian claim to be the third Rome.
Continuity isn’t necessary for a successful insurrection—indeed, an interruption of continuity is generally a prerequisite.
Great example.
Besides the Jewish uprising of the 130s, the Romans also crushed Boudicca's uprising. The Romans crushed the Pannonian revolt of A.D. 6 to 9.
We must become really mean and savage—Only in this way—becoming as evil as those who are in rebellion. We must become as crazy as they are. Only this can win. BUT, we can not be good decent civilized people when facing barbarians. To do so is to set back civilzation 500 years to 1,000 years.
Most insurgencies fail. I object to your reference to the US as an empire. On the whole, empires are better equipped to defeat insurgencies because empires tend to have a willingness to expend blood and treasure for the sake of imperial gains. Our war in Afghanistan is a matter of security and offers no other strategic or material benefit.
“No one has ever really tamed Afghanistan and no one will.
We should never have tried.” (Lurkinanloomin, post 41)
Wrong.
The British went in to prevent Imperial Russians from doing so, which would threaten the British Raj in India. When the Russians decided to go elsewhere, the British left undefeated.
The USSR had nearly finished off Afghanistan, when the US began supplying Stingers. Negated Soviet air power; the situation became untenable and the USSR backed away.
“It was too hard, so we should never have tried” sounds more like excuse-mongering on the school playground; it does illustrate how immature and impatient Americans really are. The worthiness of a goal and the difficulty of reaching it are two different things.
Concerning the lack of patience, Americans need to recalibrate their understanding of long-term and short-term. To us, long-term barely means the next Presidential election. To the Islamics, short-term is anything less than 500 years (give or take).
And we need to get over our isolationist, more-moral-than-thou attitudes. We might find being the World Police disagreeable, but if we don’t do it someone else will, and we won’t like that arrangement any better.
The taming gambit is a red herring. The goal is not to tame Afghanistan but to kill radical Zealots, to disallow their presence.
Obama never understood the mission and got caught up in lawyerly nonsense and mollycoddling. He had those that kill prosecuted. he allowed AWOL traitors to get off the hook.
There is nothing worth fighting for in Afghanistan.
It is not vital to our national security.
Secure borders are.
Unless we are going to really go to war against Islam, we should stay out of Islamic countries.
Someone has ruled over pretty much everywhere, but that's not the point. The Russian claim is not the same thing. I'm not talking about a hypothetcial legacy. I mean literally, the Catholic Church is the unbroken continuation of part of the Roman state all the way back to the republic. That's a fact. It is the same organization with a continuing sequence of office holders. Even the still used term "pontiff" predates Christianity. Only the gods have been swapped out. When the political components of the Roman state were wiped out the religious component survived and still exists. The Roman state never entirely went away.
Define the terms “won” and “Counter Insurgency.”
How do you “defeat” an enemy with no centralized command structure? There’s no one with the authority to tell all the Islamo-Fascists to lay down their arms and go home. And if there were, most would disobey because in issuing the order that “commander” will have revealed himself as an apostate and a traitor to the cause (the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy).
It’ll soon be 1400 years that the Muslims have occasionally undertaken campaigns of military conquest. I don’t think there’s any point believing they ever will stop. And there’s only two ways the present one can end. Either they take over or we play Wack-a-Muslim until they get tired of being killed and go home.
It was 500 and a few years ago that the Muslims were driven off the Iberian peninsula (and most of the Jews with them). Now they’re back. It’s only ever over until the next time. This is the War Without End.
“We did pretty well against the Native Americans.”
There are no “native” Americans. We all of us are immigrants. Some of us just got here earlier than others.
I suppose that the US defeated the Philippine insurgents. Also, check out the Greek Civil War and the Rif war in Morocco. Dhofar Rebellion or Omani Civil War is another possibility, and Nigeria did crush Biafra. Also, a lot of would-be insurgencies -- Che Guevara's in Bolivia, Shining Path, Tupamaros -- didn't have much success.
I don't know if those count, but it's also possible that an insurgency can be resisted on the battlefield until the conflict can be resolved diplomatically. Something like that may have happened in Central America in the 90s.
That's what they say. But most of the rebels or insurgents or Communists were ethnic Chinese and didn't get support from the ethnic Malays, so defeating them wasn't as difficult as winning in Vietnam would have been.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.