Russia new wonder weapon?

[Timstone]

Nice synopsis. Great research. Two thumbs up for you!
But with guerilla warfare I mean playing hide and seek in a concrete jungle (of a green jungle for that matter). It is so incredible hard to track down every single member of the group. It might take a decade to eradicate the entire group. And yes, you can do that with the methodes which you describe. And even than you don't always have a 100% succesrate.
In open warfare the USA ís the most difficult opponent of all. Quite simply; you have the most sophisticated army around.
So I meant the sneaking around, not the guerilla warfare definition.
After all, I'm just a stupid civvie.

[primitive]

Nice write Yef. Looking forward to your next instalment.

And please send a copy to gwbush@usa.com (gotta be a com address ). Sure would help if he understood the difference.

[Timstone]

Hahaha... LOL!

[Yef]

Originally posted by primitive:
Nice write Yef. Looking forward to your next instalment.

And please send a copy to gwbush@usa.com (gotta be a com address ). Sure would help if he understood the difference.

Yeah right.
Politicians never understand wars. They are quick to start it when they shouldn't, or quick to avoid it when they should fight it, (Chamberlain anyone? ) but they rarely get it right.

Look at the Last Iraki War. All those stupid a'holes in the govt where expecting the Irakis to receive the US army with flowers, while the military was screaming for more troops and more planes. I've heard rumors from my pals that Rummy wasn't even expecting a resistance.
The Secretary of Defense its nothing more than a hawkish politician that can't see around the corner, and then the military leadership can't speak up because well, they can't speak up.

Let's just say that Iraki Freedom went better than the military expected, worst than the politicians dreamed.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

The new Star Wars plan was only for intercepting 150 missles. Not the big grandiose scheme that Ronald RayGun had planned. This doesn't include the "Theatre Ballistic Missle Defence" that involves upgraded Aegis Cruisers and that 747 with the big laser in back that shoots through a turret in the nose. Son of Star Wars was only suppose to protect us (and hopefully friends) against Rogue States or China .
If Russia wants to develope a missle that zigs and zags then go ahead. If Russia wants to develope a hypersonic cruise missle then maybe a hypersonic SAM would counter that. Don't worry I don't think Russia is our enemy anymore. It's that N. Korean Don King impersonator your gotta look out for.

[PvK]

Yef, would you elaborate on your assertion that "Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire."?

Do you mean that there may be some fanatics whose minds cannot be changed, and who may not rely as much on popular support as guerrillas?

Seems to me though that popular support and changing the minds of people is still critical. As long as one government is perceived by some group of people as hate-worthy, it will continue to inspire more people to engage in acts against it.

So while some people who are already dedicated to violence may have to be killed, populations have to be swayed in order to prevent an endless regeneration of opponents.

No?

PvK

[Yef]

Originally posted by PvK:
Yef, would you elaborate on your assertion that "Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire."?

Do you mean that there may be some fanatics whose minds cannot be changed, and who may not rely as much on popular support as guerrillas?

Well, the problem with the fanatics its not only that they cannot be won over, but that they always manage to radicalize a good chunk of the civilian population. The precense of terrorist tactics in a war tells you that certain line have been crossed, and that line cannot be crossed without support of sizable segment of the population, which in time tells you that a deep rift have occurred within such population that now sees the ones that are not with them as collaborating with the enemy, and thus fair game for terrorist tactics.

In short, guerrillas wants to "save" the population and the country, whether this "saving" its wanted or not (Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara), while terrorists wants to "save" only a segment of that population (IRA, ETA). This means that the critical mass necessary for a terrorist war to be "succesful" its lower than for a guerrilla war, thus making a guerrilla war easier to win for the counter-guerrilla forces.

But in the end every conflict has its owns characteristics which tend to modify how the war its played out, with the most important modifiers being population density, etnic make out, religion(s), terrain, borders, and even transportation network, which in time define the tactics that would be used by the insurgents.

In the case of Irak, for example, the resistance its using a mix of tactics that goes from full blown guerrilla ambushes, through drive-by-shootings and drive-by-mortaring, to pure terror tactics like car-bombs and suicide bombers.
This mix of tactics force a mix of counter-tactics, which includes the search for terrorists in civilian houses, check points, restrictions on civilian freedom of movement, and so on.

All these have the effect of annuling any progress you may have achieved by investing on the local population's well being, because yes, you gave them food, but then you stop them at a check point and search them out (which is a great offense for an Arab), and then you may even have to break into their houses acting on field intelligence that some terrorist may be hiding in there.
Its a proven fact in counter-terrorist warfare that it takes only one action that can be interpreted as offensive to render void a hundred previous good actions.

In Irak, the civilian population its being used as camouflage by the resistance. They attack the US forces in the middle of populated areas, provoking inevitable collateral damage from return fire, and this in turn provokes hate from the population.

Its almost impossible to convince the population that the resistance its the one responsible for their hardships. When the civilians are under the stress of war, they will always see the side manning the check point as the one responsible for the existance of it.

There is also the fact that the resistance comes directly from the local population, which brings family ties into the equation, and even the foreign fighters that are in the resistance are closer to the locals, for being Arabs and muslims, than the US troops.

Add to that years of anti-American propaganda, zillions of conspiracy theories that are taken for facts, and a harsh reality that doesn't seem to get any better, and you have the recipe for a long drawn conflict with no end in sight.