So, when a nation like the United States is faced with an enemy like Al-Queda or the insurgents in Iraq who use un-conventional warfare, what is the best way to defeat such opponents?
oldreliable67 said:Ah, that is a very good question indeed! But, TimmyBoy, from the tone of some of your previous posts and responses to the posts of others, I suspect that you have a particular motive in mind for this question, a motive that is not explicity evident in the question itself. It sounds very much if you are trying to 'bait' someone into posting a response for which you are already prepared and waiting just for the opportunity to slam and flame.
I have some definite opinions on this topic and will be happy to post them and discuss the topic in a civil manner. But I'm not interested in a flame contest.
That is my impression. Now, if I'm wrong about your intentions, I'll apologize here in advance and post up some thoughts on the topic. What about it? Is your question real or is it flame bait?
TimmyBoy said:One of the common myths about terrorism is that it is the "weapon of the weak" or the "weapon of the poor." Terrorism is not the sole weapon of the weak and poor. It is also the weapon of the rich and powerful.
However, the weak and the poor do resort to unconventional warfare when faced with powerful armies like that of the United States. Hit and run guerrilla tatics or terrorists who blend in with the American population, lead normal lives and 4hen turn to attack high value US targets within the US. This makes it very difficult for powerful countries like the US to combat through their superior force alone. Terrorism is like a strategic form of guerrilla war, much like partisan warfare is a tatical form of unconventional war on the battlefield. Where in partisan war, the enemy attacks a much more powerful enemy, inflicts a few casualties and then vanishes into the night to escape the army's counter attacks. This could happen where the enemy is a civilian who is friendly towards an occupying army during the day, smiling, waving and offerring hospitality and then turning around at night and killing the same soldiers they were nice to. Terrorism is a strategic form of warfare, designed to harm a nation's economy and to do so in an unconventional manner, to also hide in the shadows before striking.
So, when a nation like the United States is faced with an enemy like Al-Queda or the insurgents in Iraq who use un-conventional warfare, what is the best way to defeat such opponents?
Terrorism is a strategic form of warfare, designed to harm a nation's economy and to do so in an unconventional manner, to also hide in the shadows before striking.
oldreliable67 said:TimmyBoy hasn't yet responded to my inquiry above, but I will add a couple of distinctions to his description of guerilla vs terrorist tactics. Guerillas 1)typically but not exclusively attack opposing military targets, most often with 'hit and run' tactics, very rarely with the objective of gaining or retaining long-term control of area or facilities; 2) depend on the largesse of, or theft from the local populace for sustenance; 3) are typically but not exclusively indigeneous to the area in which they operate; and 4) typically but not always identifiable by some kind of uniform, even if rudimentary (e.g., the black pajamas worn by VC).
Terrorists on the other hand, 1) typically but not exclusively attack civilian targets and/or civilian facilities that are likely to have a high financial or economic impact on the targeted population; 2) depend on financing from a parent or umbrella organization such as a religous organization or government; 3) may or may not be indigenous to the area in which they operate; if not indigenous, typically rely on the permissiveness of the state (in terms of ease of entry and immigration rules/regs) in which they are operating for their ability to go undetected; and 4) typically do not wear any kind of identifiable uniform.
Key difference: guerilla focus is typically defeat of an opposing military force; terrorists focus is persuading civilian populace to accede to the terrorists demands or appeasement, or to pursuade civilian populace to force govt to accede or appease.
These distinctions are far from 'iron-clad', hence the liberal usage of 'typically' this or that. As generalizations go, they're ok, but certainly not gospel.
Gunny, if you are around, you might add to this?
The destruction of 2 buildings and 3000 dead were, from an economic perspective, hardly significant events.
attacking a civilian population to coerce a government for political reasons...is not practiced just by Al-queda but by the US government
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?