PDA

View Full Version : A History of Guerilla and Clandestine Warfare



Caledonian
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 01:39 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l2zbCmEsChY/S9CKUbA3CaI/AAAAAAAAARc/7kSB7TVRs6A/s1600/IRA.jpg

http://www.irishblogs.ie/images/535280.jpg

http://irelandsown.net/rira.jpg



The history of guerilla or clandestine warfare is a complex one.

It largely revolves around a small mobile force of fighters that use irregular warfare against a much bigger and better armed force.

The military tactic of guerilla warfare is ambushes,sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and mobility to harass a larger less mobile standard conventional force with the withdrawal of guerilla forces immediately back to safety afterwards after a attack before enemy reinforcements come into the same area.

In this thread weekly I plan on discussing the fundamentals of guerilla warfare used throughout world history that is the fundamentals of it's strategy, tactics, and way of implementation.


As we speak modern warfare is in crisis because warfare in today's world is at a precipice in that larger standard conventional armies are becoming outdated as models of fighting war in that they are often enough becoming bewildered by the modern guerilla fighter.

When you cannot discern civilian from a enemy guerilla fighter your conventional force is slower to maneuver and slower to react.

When your conventional standard army is so massive and big it remains a stationary target for a much more mobile force to attack.

Even more as what has happened recently in our own time when your conventional standard army is so big and numerous it leaves itself to be easily infiltrated by enemy operatives who can then relay information on the outside or sabotage targets from within.

Here in this thread it is my hope for there to be a discussion group on guerilla and clandestine warfare in general.

I hope to have many people discuss this wonderful historical military tradition with me as it has become somewhat of a hobby of mine.

Let us explore guerilla and clandestine warfare both ancient and modern as students of historical warfare in discussion here in this thread.

Neophyte
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 04:11 PM
Recommended reading:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/art5-w98.htm


Let me state this definition: RW = G + P, or, "revolutionary warfare equals guerrilla warfare plus political action." This formula for revolutionary warfare is the result of the application of guerrilla methods to the furtherance of an ideology or a political system. This is the real difference between partisan warfare, guerrilla warfare, and everything else. "Guerrilla" simply means "small war," to which the correct Army answer is (and that applies to all Western armies) that everybody knows how to fight small wars; no second lieutenant of the infantry ever learns anything else but how to fight small wars. Political action, however, is the difference. The communists, or shall we say, any sound revolutionary warfare operator (the French underground, the Norwegian underground, or any other European anti-Nazi underground) most of the time used small-war tactics--not to destroy the German Army, of which they were thoroughly incapable, but to establish a competitive system of control over the population. Of course, in order to do this, here and there they had to kill some of the occupying forces and attack some of the military targets. But above all they had to kill their own people who collaborated with the enemy.

But the "kill" aspect, the military aspect, definitely always remained the minor aspect. The political, administrative, ideological aspect is the primary aspect. Everybody, of course, by definition, will seek a military solution to the insurgency problem, whereas by its very nature, the insurgency problem is military only in a secondary sense, and political, ideological, and administrative in a primary sense. Once we understand this, we will understand more of what is actually going on in Viet-Nam or in some of the other places affected by RW.

This is why ISAF is getting caned in Afghanistan, and will go on to be so in Pakistan. The West is basically fighting a conventional war when the Taliban are running an armed election campaign. You can do a lot of things with an UAV or an Apache gunship, but winning and keeping the political contol over the population on the ground is not one of them.

In so far as it has a politcial alternative to offer, it is one of the most corrupt and hated puppet governments on the face of the earth.

Caledonian
Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 05:33 AM
Recommended reading:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/art5-w98.htm



This is why ISAF is getting caned in Afghanistan, and will go on to be so in Pakistan. The West is basically fighting a conventional war when the Taliban are running an armed election campaign. You can do a lot of things with an UAV or an Apache gunship, but winning and keeping the political contol over the population on the ground is not one of them.

In so far as it has a politcial alternative to offer, it is one of the most corrupt and hated puppet governments on the face of the earth.

In a world where warfare is becoming more technical and complex by massive technological innovation where weapons can be descended on a enemy by advanced remote mechanisms without a actual standing army attacking another technology has infact only aided in strengthening clandestine and guerilla groups that have used such tactics even before such technology even existed.

We live in a world where a explosive can be implanted and detonated a hundred miles away from the initial blast area without the detenator themselves being present.

We live in a world where remote control mechanical sniper rifles on a platform can be controlled by a computer twenty miles away where a shooter does not even have to be present when the scope of the rifle has it's target in sight ready to descend on it with what is in it's chamber.

[The future of course is remote control or computerized rifle torrents like you see in a sci fi movie.]

[Once upon it's target some assasins probally find it useful to self detonate such machinery in order to leave no traces of the actual operation or themselves I would imagine in a form of trace evidence.]

There is a reason as to why governments seek to protect such military secrets the way that they do by all and any means necessary of capital punishment. The reason is quite simple such technologies and weapons is all that governments have between those that hold power within it's institutions and the people that it controls through those government institutions with such technological weapons in that such weapons are all that stands in the way of complete civil rebellion or break down in defending themselves not to mention they are used to subdue the population into a organization that they can then direct.

There will be a time in the future where government secrets of specific government technological weapons will be more readily available by mass production of the people in that as technology grows so does the access through technology to gain vast amounts of information grow in that best secrets no longer become that secretive.

Once that occurs the government will no longer have the upper hand of possessing advanced weaponry in that civilians will come to be able to mass produce it for themselves where government hegemony of power will be completely disbalanced where a total rebellion will occur like we have never seen before on a scale that is very large.

[ The oppressive upper hierarchy will find that it's possession of advanced technological weapons will be evenly matched by the civilian lower hierarchy that overtime will have learned to mass produce such technologies for themselves in constructing such weapons.]

[ The question is how the civilian populance would be able to mass produce such weapons without the government knowing about it in observance.]

The only reason why guerilla insurgents in modern wars like Iraq or Afghanistan are failing is due to their inability to procure advanced weaponry in that the weapons they use even the more sophisticated ones are practically out of date when it concerns the amount of advanced technology used by American or allied forces.


most of the time used small-war tactics--not to destroy the German Army, of which they were thoroughly incapable, but to establish a competitive system of control over the population. Of course, in order to do this, here and there they had to kill some of the occupying forces and attack some of the military targets. But above all they had to kill their own people who collaborated with the enemy.

That's exactly the strategy of guerilla and clandestine warfare even going back to the ancient Gauls or Germans in their attacks on Roman forces.

The goal of guerilla warfare is simply to cause enough disruption on the local population of which a conventional military derives it's financing and power from where the guerilla causes popular opinion to no longer support the conventional military army thus weakening it's effectiveness where it also seeks to advance it's own ideology within the local populance so that the guerilla themselves gain enough support where eventually they themselves become a conventional fighting military force competitive and competent enough to go from guerilla tactics to all out war by other conventional means as a regular standing army fighting their opponents.

Guerilla and clandestine warfare is only used by a faction when in their beginnings they are not strong enough to take on conventional military forces directly where the goal of any guerilla movement is to slowly gain enough resources and people within it's ranks as a rebel faction to where it can go from guerilla tactics straight all the way to regular conventional military tactics as a competent military force.

Although there have been guerilla factions that have resisted and fought against conventional armies for periods over fifty years in some countries no guerilla rebel faction has ever succeeded in overthrowing a modern conventional military without first becoming eventually a conventional military force themselves.

I'll add more tomorrow being now I have alot of empty time on my shoulders. :D

PS: I would advise everybody to keep this conversation and topic only on the theory or history of such warfare where it doesn't relate to any specific real people in real time where it makes no specific threatening of targets as that would be illegal in that it can be a punishable offense by a government who can regulate internet speech in some limited degrees so far by punishing those involved where I'm sure that this thread is closely monitored by moderators here of the board to prevent such occurences and misuse of this thread.