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!
The Indian Wars, the Boer War, the Thuggee campaign. Spartacus Salve revolt ...
Ok. We kicked the Indians butts pretty well.
The Romans usually did ok!
The keys for a insurgency to win are: outside steady resupply of men and materials, a sanctuary where the insurgency can go to rest, train & regroup and to a lessor extent a sense of restraint by the occupying power.
Bottom line: It can be done, but Afghanistan ain’t the place.
Yes, 110 acres are there. Some of the terminology is there. Pontiff is derived from the same root as pontoon, meaning bridge.
However the seat of government had shipped out of Rome aeons before Leo the Great and Gregory the Great increased Church involvement in what had been state affairs, but it was more along the lines of taking over the ancient equivalent of the EBT system.
Formal sovereignty came with either Charles Martel or Charlemagne conquering the area and then giving things to the Pope. Up to that point Constantinople still had a nominal claim for sovereignty.
At any rate, even if one grants your claim, the Jewish state now dwarfs the Roman.
The communist insurgency ran from 1950 to 1960, because the communists were opposed to anyone not them running Malaya.
I read where a unit of Gurkhas stayed nose deep by a river bank for some 20-odd hours waiting to ambush a group of insurgents. They did, and wiped them out to a man.
You don't win against guys like that.
Define Win.
The British successfully fought counter-insurgency campaigns against communists in Malaysia (1948–60) and against the Mau-Mau in Kenya (1952–60).
“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.”
Sounds more like a Left/Progressive dodge than anything conservative: implies thereat don’t exist out there, therefore we don’t have to bother with the unpleasant business of countering threats.
Though our homeland isn’t overseas (not much of it at any rate) our interests extend everywhere. They are vulnerable too.
There is also the question of public perception. If we fail to respond, we look weak. Invites more attacks.
Americans need to get over Crusade-it is. Not every conflict can be WWII (perhaps we should be grateful). The idea that we cannot get involved unless circumstances are huge leads to inaction at crucial junctures.
Better to fight them there, than here. And “here” will occur, if we fail to fight them elsewhere.
Fighting them over here is inevitable if we keep importing the poison of Islam.
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.