World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Ray · 01-15-2007, 02:17 AM

Malaysia is possibly the only example where the military has been able to defeat insurgency. There are good reasons why that could have been done and which cannot be replicated in contemporary times, without decrying in any way the good work done by Templar.

I maybe wrong, but in modern times, the defeat of Malayan insurgency is the only example where regulars were effective.

It also need to be understood that the environment of each insurgency is totally different from the next. Therefore, superimposing of one mode on another may not be correct, even though the principles of application may hold good to some extent.

While one can suppress insurgency with cruel and inhuman methods (as possibly could have been done in Communist countries and military dictatorship or by regimes like Mugabe), it cannot be done by democracies. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a means or mode of suppressing insurrections.

In Vietnam, village relocation was also done. The final outcome of Vietnam is in no way reflective of the village relocation policy. This brings out the point that while ground level methods can lead to results, the whole effort can fail if there is no clear cut mission and aim and it being made worse by having a corrupt govt in place in the insurgency ridden country and which has no credibility. The Vietnam govt had very little credibility since it was corrupt and full of self seekers.

The contention that the US should smash cities, burn villages or pillage or destroy is not valid because the world has changed! A large majority of shackled populations in the colonies who had no voice are today independent. Like it or not, they matter! Hypothetically, if the British Empire was still there in contemporary times, then finances, resources, manpower, strategic material would be in abundance! Iraq could have been subdued or even bought over! The Indian and other Armies of the British Empire would have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pragmatically speaking, their death for the 'cause' would have not have had the same revulsion as it has with US and British deaths that occur in Iraq and Afghanistan! And so, the Iraq war would have been pressed on with more vigour and without "change of strategy"! Of course, the shabash would have flowed for the loyal native troops etc and a few sops like the Victoria Cross thrown their way!

Unfortunately, since the colonies are now their own masters, these Armies, which could have been material are in the Coalition of the Unwilling! One cannot say whether it is for the good or bad.

One cannot thus agree with the contention that the US has forgotten how to win wars! The US Army is at its best and they are facing numerous odds, both in the US policy making arena as also because of a recalcitrant Iraqi govt.

It is true that the insurgent depends on five things things to continue to fight: recruits, an idea, freedom of movement, media, and poverty. Remove any three and the insurgency will fail.

The issue is how to remove these things.

There is no doubt that if the economic environment of the individuals is improved it will go along way to choke the insurgency since the 'idea' is basically causative of abject poverty that the breakdown of administration brings and removing the complete Administrative structure in Iraq after the invasion was the biggest folly.

The religious fervour amongst the Iraqis was not that pronounced as with other Islamic nations since that was totally suppressed by Saddam. However, because of the occupation and the attempt to Divide and Rule, it has surfaced with vengeance. And the Sunni Shia nonsense is a historical legacy that cannot be subdued unless one is a Saddam.

Indeed, movement of the population should be not only regulated but also put under the microscope. Likewise, the media has to be controlled. It may not be democratic an action, but nonetheless, it has to be enforced till the situation comes closer to normalcy.

Religious activities should be controlled since most problems occur because of misrepresentation of facts by the religious leaders who have their own axe to grind and the also because the population is illiterate and can be swayed by twisting the religion to suit the convenience!

Notwithstanding my comments, zraver, your post was most thought provoking and a pleasure to read.

01-15-2007, 02:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,386 Country:	Malaysia is possibly the only example where the military has been able to defeat insurgency. There are good reasons why that could have been done and which cannot be replicated in contemporary times, without decrying in any way the good work done by Templar. I maybe wrong, but in modern times, the defeat of Malayan insurgency is the only example where regulars were effective. It also need to be understood that the environment of each insurgency is totally different from the next. Therefore, superimposing of one mode on another may not be correct, even though the principles of application may hold good to some extent. While one can suppress insurgency with cruel and inhuman methods (as possibly could have been done in Communist countries and military dictatorship or by regimes like Mugabe), it cannot be done by democracies. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a means or mode of suppressing insurrections. In Vietnam, village relocation was also done. The final outcome of Vietnam is in no way reflective of the village relocation policy. This brings out the point that while ground level methods can lead to results, the whole effort can fail if there is no clear cut mission and aim and it being made worse by having a corrupt govt in place in the insurgency ridden country and which has no credibility. The Vietnam govt had very little credibility since it was corrupt and full of self seekers. The contention that the US should smash cities, burn villages or pillage or destroy is not valid because the world has changed! A large majority of shackled populations in the colonies who had no voice are today independent. Like it or not, they matter! Hypothetically, if the British Empire was still there in contemporary times, then finances, resources, manpower, strategic material would be in abundance! Iraq could have been subdued or even bought over! The Indian and other Armies of the British Empire would have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pragmatically speaking, their death for the 'cause' would have not have had the same revulsion as it has with US and British deaths that occur in Iraq and Afghanistan! And so, the Iraq war would have been pressed on with more vigour and without "change of strategy"! Of course, the shabash would have flowed for the loyal native troops etc and a few sops like the Victoria Cross thrown their way! Unfortunately, since the colonies are now their own masters, these Armies, which could have been material are in the Coalition of the Unwilling! One cannot say whether it is for the good or bad. One cannot thus agree with the contention that the US has forgotten how to win wars! The US Army is at its best and they are facing numerous odds, both in the US policy making arena as also because of a recalcitrant Iraqi govt. It is true that the insurgent depends on five things things to continue to fight: recruits, an idea, freedom of movement, media, and poverty. Remove any three and the insurgency will fail. The issue is how to remove these things. There is no doubt that if the economic environment of the individuals is improved it will go along way to choke the insurgency since the 'idea' is basically causative of abject poverty that the breakdown of administration brings and removing the complete Administrative structure in Iraq after the invasion was the biggest folly. The religious fervour amongst the Iraqis was not that pronounced as with other Islamic nations since that was totally suppressed by Saddam. However, because of the occupation and the attempt to Divide and Rule, it has surfaced with vengeance. And the Sunni Shia nonsense is a historical legacy that cannot be subdued unless one is a Saddam. Indeed, movement of the population should be not only regulated but also put under the microscope. Likewise, the media has to be controlled. It may not be democratic an action, but nonetheless, it has to be enforced till the situation comes closer to normalcy. Religious activities should be controlled since most problems occur because of misrepresentation of facts by the religious leaders who have their own axe to grind and the also because the population is illiterate and can be swayed by twisting the religion to suit the convenience! Notwithstanding my comments, zraver, your post was most thought provoking and a pleasure to read. __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA Last edited by Ray : 01-15-2007 at 02:25 AM.