Guerilla warfare

[Fader]

What‘s everyone‘s take on guerilla warfare? Aside the fact that it‘s a considered a war crime.

If guerilla‘s could beat back the Americans in the Vietnam (and hopefully the Iraq) war; I think everyone should be versed in guerilla tactics. I mean, if you‘re completly outclassed by the enemy, what‘s the point in fighting him where he‘s strongest?

I only bring this up, because I heard that my grandfather, who I‘ve never met, was a guerilla in the Philippine army in WWII. Supposidly, he killed a lot of Japanese soldiers while the Philippines were occupied using only a bayonet(something I want to find out from him first hand).

 

[Fader]

hmm, guess this thread really has no relevance to the Canadian army, does it? Especially since guerilla tactics are not, and probably never will be part of training for Canadian soldiers.

 

[Bringer]

"And hopefully the Iraq (war)"?

You‘re wishing excessive casualties on your allies? Go **** yourself.

 

[radop211tc]

Hey Lui
I really think, you should turn in your kit, as attitudes like yours, gives hardworking Reservists a bad name.
I for one, believe Bush Lite has a hidden agenda in Iraq, however, I do not wish any harm at all to the troops on the ground.
I am sure OUR troops in AfghaniLand, appreciate your comments.

The military must have changed drastically, since I have been in, cuz back in my day, misfits like yourself would have been sorted out in the Back Forty.

Asides from the CF, I worked hard for my Jimmy and you don‘t deserve to have it anywhere near your fluid leaking skull.

Tc...
VVV

 

[GrahamD]

Outclassed by the enemy?

You mean to say that targeting innocent U.N. workers and civilians, is the classy way to win a war? Trying to terrorise their own people with random violence and murder, and then to trying to make it appear as though American occupation is to blame, when in fact they are only there right now seeking to eliminate one of the most brutal political leaders of our time? Wow, that sure is classy.

Maybe the Americans are enticed by the oil, or whatever other secret little agenda the Bush administration is after, but that doen‘t change the fact that occupation in Iraq is the best thing for them, until it is certain that Hussein is never coming back.

Lets be thankful that we don‘t train our troops in the art of suicide bombing, or teach them how to fly planes into buildings. Learning to fight (and kill) is one thing, when you are learning to fight against armed enemies who pose a real threat to you, your buddies, or your country and its allies. Learning to murder civilians in an attempt to sway public opinion, or to try and intimidate a government, is, quite frankly, insane.

 

[McInnes]

irregular soldier, usually politically motivated: a member of an irregular paramilitary unit, usually with some political objective such as the overthrow of a government. Guerrillas usually operate in small groups to harass and carry out sabotage.

This conception of guerrilla warfare as political war turns Psychological Operations into the decisive factor of the results. The target, then, is the minds of the population, all the population: our troops, the enemy troops and the civilian population. fromIN GUERRILLA WARFARE- A Tactical Manual

I do not think that the Canadian Army should be trained to carry out guerrilla warfare. It is more of a psychological attack on a population, to make a political point. Basically like a raiding party. Perhaps you were trying to get at commando style tactics

1. specially trained soldier: a member of a military force specially trained to make dangerous raids

maybe more along the lines of that?

 

[Fader]

What does this have to do with me, asides the fact that I find guerilla warfare fascinating? I mean, from a military perspective, the objective of guerilla warfare is to turn an enemies greatest asset into greater liabilites.

I met a fellow online who claims to be a US marine currently in Iraq. The circumstances under which I met him lead me to believe that that really was the case. He was describing to me all the firepower he had at his disposal (M16 with an M203 ‘nade launcher and a 240b(?)). He also went on to describe how he was there when Delta Force raided and killed Saddam‘s sons.

Delta guys went in first and absolultly ****ed things up and then when they were done we got to shoot some rounds into the building which is always fun

Alot of his post painted a pretty grim picture for the opposition. He described roaming the streets of Tikrit with the 4th Infantry Division, patrolling through Mosoul with the 101st Airborne with Bradley‘s. All in all, a very scary situation, especially for the Iraqi‘s.

How do you fight a vastly superior enemy? We‘re fortunate enough that the vastly superior enemy is normally on our side, but the question remains, how do you fight something bigger, stronger, and faster than you?

Oh, and why should I care about Americans? You think they care about Canadians? Vietnam and Iraq are American wars. In the case of Iraq, it‘s a war they started that they should be responsible for. True, it‘s not a nice move, it‘s a very criminal move, but attacking the UN building did a lot more damage to the US than attacking a bank swarmed with US soldiers would have.

 

[Fader]

MccInnes, that makes more sense, but your definition varies a bit from mine:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guerilla

guer·ril·la or gue·ril·la ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-rl)
n.
A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

I don‘t think Guerilla tactics should be taught to trained soldiers either. A lot of times, some of them equate to very criminal acts. I remember watching Commandos on the History Channel a while back, there was a documentary on British soldiers who were trained to carry out raids and strikes against the Germans should they ever invade England. Really, a lot of the stuff they learnt was how to murder people and destroy equipment AND escape from the authorities.

 

[Redneck052]

Stick to paint ball!

Leave the soldiering things to soldiers that care.

:akimbo:

 

[Bringer]

Commandos were never trained to "murder people."

They were trained to kill enemy officers and other hard to replace members of the enemy‘s military. All perfectly legal acts of war. Destroying infrastructure like power lines or railway tracks is more grey area, but in an all encompassing war such as WW2, rail lines were essential to movement of men and equipment and destroying that would put a major crimp into enemy plans.

Guerrilla tactics are only a war crime if the guerrilla fighters are dressed in civilian clothing and blending into a civilian population. Hitler ordered that all commandos captured in WW2 should be killed outright, regardless of whether they identified themselves as enemy combatants and wore an enemy (allied) uniform.

I don‘t see how the bombing of the UN embassy hurts the US, as the US had offered security for the UN building and were rejected. Then again, I don‘t see why 18 and 19 year old Americans should die because their government ordered them to go to Iraq either, so I guess I don‘t share your ****ed up world viewpoint.

In summary, eat a bowl of fsck.

 

[PTE Gruending]

I think that maybe you guys are confusing guerilla warfare with acts of terrorism. An interesting read is Tom Clancy‘s "Special Forces", which I didnt quite finish up due to time constraints. But basically it describes U.S. special operations training from WW2 to present. The special forces he describes (I cannot remember the name of the teams, but they were used extensively in Vietnam) basically were airdropped behind enemy lines and connected with local populations. From there, they armed and trained the locales to fight the enemy (whether it was the NVA, etc). So I do not think it is right to describe guerilla warfare as being illegal...

 

[McInnes]

whoa, I think some people just need to calm down a bit. Aside from the fact that Fader said "If guerilla‘s could beat back the Americans in the Vietnam (and hopefully the Iraq) war" I dont see why there is such a problem. He asked for thoughts in regard to training Canadian Soldiers in the use of tactics which promote basically "winning out" against superior enemy forces. There seem to be varying thoughts on what Guerrila Tactics really are. Basically, I think the point being made is that if we were fighting someone with superior power, we would have to use small JTF like units, and small commando units to inflict enough damage to have a hope of survival. Such as raids, sabotage, covert ops, ect.

 

[Fader]

Guess the definition of gurilla warefare isn‘t consistant among us. What would sneaking into guarded facilities, killing guards and sentries, destroying equipment, and stealing supplies with the intent of striking fear into the enemy as well as slowing them down qualify as?

 

[Fader]

lol; exactly my point, McInnes; and as I mentioned earlier, this argument has no connection to the CF anyways.

 

[GrahamD]

To my knowledge, guerilla tactics are basicaly when an enemy force uses "unconventional" warfare. As opposed to defending a "line" or any set defensive position (ie fire bases, fortresses), the enemy will instead opt to use their natural environment as concealment, to set up ambushes, to disappear into the landscape, and otherwise be extremly difficult to predict, be found, or gather accurate intelligence on.

Other things that have been discussed here, in my opinion would fall under the terms terrorism, sabotage, or covert ops.

From news reports on the war in Iraq, I have heard nothing that would indicate that the Iraqis are guerilla fighters. Bitter, fanatical, and prepared to fight until the death? sure. Able to appear from the dessert to inflict heavy casualties with co-ordinated and efficient attacks, and vanish again, thereby frusterating the Americans? I haven‘t heard anything to indicate that.

What I have heard, is that the enemy is difficult to identify amoung the populace, and that small groups will ambush, or attack only very small numbers of American soldiers, and that now there is a shift, and they are starting to see more civilian casualties. It‘s speculated that it is to build up anti-American sentiment amoung the Iraqi population, and to make them feel as though there will be serious repercussions later for assisting the allies. That‘s terrorism.

Also, in my opinion, we (also the Americans) have adopted certain guerilla style tactics, which are utilized by special forces when necessary to acomplish more detailed, specific and difficult objectives.
It‘s my belief though that on the larger scale of warfare, the coventional warfare used by us and our current allies, would still be used in the face of large scale effective guerilla tactics, if for no other reason that to appear to have the "gumption" to stand up, out in the open, and defend our beliefs and convictions.
Our Western beliefs surrounding honour, courage, and victory, would be damaged if we were to meet our enemies at their level, (underground, concealed, and unable to stand up and kick some A$$.)

 

[Staff]

Guerillas are what the big army calls the little army.

As already mentioned, guerilla warfare is a valid tactic specifically included in special warfare training by almost every nation that employs Special Forces. These tactics enable small, isolated units to effectively engage larger enemy units or assets and survive.

That being said, don‘t confuse guerilla warfare with some criminal acts perpetrated by guerillas. (Specifically I‘m thinking of the "death squads" in central and south america awhile ago. Not sure what year.)

I personally think that small unit warfare has a viable role in the CF. We don‘t really have a large enough standing military for any kind of a conventional confrontation. Small, mobile units with a great deal of autonomy could disrupt enemy activities significantly. The SF teams deployed prior to the start of the First Gulf War ("Scud buster‘s")that we‘ve heard of were pretty effective. The PPCLI snipers employed in Afghanistan are technically "Guerillas". They too proved that attached units, outside of the formation, have a valid role.(Ask the 82nd)

 

[McInnes]

I think that some people are associating "Guerrila Tactics" with terrorism. Perhaps some of the most well-know Guerrilas commited illegal acts of terrorism, but that isnt to say that illegal acts of terrorism go hand in hand with a given set of tactics. And who is to say what defines terrorism anyways? It‘s been said often, one mans‘ terrorist is another mans‘ hero.

 

[Danjanou]

As always Lui/Fader has opened mouth without engaging brain cells (perhaps deliberately).

For the record the NLF (National Liberation Front) and their military arm the Viet Cong did not militarily defeat the US military in Vietnam. They never, repeat, never won a major engagement. In fact at Tet in 1968, contrary to the way it has appeared in the media, the VC were for the most part destroyed as a military force.

After Tet the bulk of the fighting was carried out by the regular North Vietnamese Army (NVA). Even they though were never able to defeat the Americans in a major conventional battle (Hue, Khe San, Parrots Beak). Only after the US pulled out in 1972, were the NVA able to go on the offensive and defeat the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) forces three years later in 1975.

Vietnam was a political more so than a military defeat for the US.

Guerilla literally comes from the Spanish phrase "Little War" and was first used to describe the partisan forces that tied down large numbers of invading French troops in Spain and Portugal in the early part of the 19th century after the regular Spanish Army fell apart.

They were very effective and perhaps instrumental in the final French defeat. They utilised what for the time were unconventional but highly effective tactics such as raids and ambushes usually against vulnerable enemy supply lines rather than combat units.

The war was also brutal and most standard conventions regarding prisoners and non combatants were quickly ignored by both sides.

Many of the concepts of unconventional warfare really comes from this era and is a valid one. A nation or movement that is unable to fight a conventional war against a conventional army (perhaps because they lack the resources of a standing army etc.) will often adopt this tactic. Whether it is resisting an invader or trying to topple an existing regime internally.

It works, and history has shown this. Most modern military forces have some capabality (practical forces or at least theoretical doctrine) to employ unconventional forces either "guerilla" and/or counter guerilla forces.

For example in the 1960‘s US Special Forces were employed as counter insurgency forces to combat NLF Viet Cong guerilla units in South Vietnam, and at the same time operate (train and lead) with indegionous Meo and Laotian guerilla forces in communist North Vietnam.

The line becomes blurred when referring to guerillas especially those who are "civillians"
(ie were never uniformed professional soldiers)as terrorists. Remember one man‘s freedom fighter was another‘s terrorist.

Batista led a revolt in the 1920‘s to overthrow a dictator in Cuba. He was hailed as a freedom fighter. Later the former Sgt promoted himself General and became a dictator. Fidel Castro overthrew him using classic guerilla warfare tactics. Now he‘s head of state and during the cold war exported his tactics and troops around the world with some measure of success (Angola, Ethiopia, Nicarauga).

The Stern gang and the Igrun in Palestine in the late 1940‘s were viewed by the British as terrorists, yet Israel deems them patriots and freedom fighters. The tactics they employed BTW were no different than those in use by the PLO now.

The same could be said about the EKOA in Cypress, the ALN in Algeria, the Mau Mau in Kenya, ZAPU in Zimbabwe, the ANC in South Africa, or any former guerilla/terrorist/freedom fighter movement whose members later made up the Government. That list could by the way include such countries as the US, France, and Canada depending on one‘s interpretation.

Anybody remember the fearless Mujahaddin freedom fighters that held off the Soviets during the 1980‘s. The same guys became the Taliban.

The Soviets considered the Hungarian‘s who rose up in 1956 as terrorists, as did the Nazis and Vichy French Government in regards to the Maquis resistance fighters in occupied France from 1940-44. In the west they‘re both gallant freedom fighters, yet the "legitimate" Government of the day thought differently.

Hey even the Brits considered the colonial farmers who rose against them in the American colonies in 1775-76 as terrorists, although the word wasn‘t in vogue yet. Care to tell a Daughter of the American Revolution what her ancestors were?

Unfortunately he who wins often writes the history books. Therefore the Igrun, Stern gang, EOKA et all are right up there with the gallant French and Phillipino resistance fighters. That is at least in our view of the world.

BTW we actually have had a guerilla force in the Canadian Army. The Pacific Coast Militia Rangers raised on the west coast after Japan entered WWII were organised as groups of small units that could harry and delay a Japanes invasion using classic guerilla warfare tactics until conventional forces could arrive. As our conventional forces were for the most part in England then, that might haven taken some time.

Their descendents the Canadian Rangers practiced for the same sort of thing in the Arctic during the cold war in the unlikely event of a Soviet incursion up there.

 

[Bringer]

Great post Danjanou. I‘d like to see Lui/Fader‘s rebuttle... or just his fading from view.

On the topic of Vietnam, I‘d recommend a book called Unheralded Victory. It looks at the Vietnam war and how it was actually fought on both sides rather than looking at the media and other second hand accounts

The author goes straight to the source and peels away the propaganda that has continued to evolve in the thirty years since America pulled her combat troops from South Vietnam. In fact the author served in Vietnam himself as a US Marine.

Definitely worth reading for anyone remotely interested in South-east Asia.

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0918339510/702-0068919-8414402

 

[D.A. Stolovitch]

Danjanou has provided a pretty good synopsis of Viet Cong and NVA in the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War is often mistakenly portrayed as a triumph by black pajama clad Viet Cong guerrillas against the US Army, when in fact that was not the case.

Serious students of military history can read up on this, in any one of the several excellent Vietnam War history books that have been published. In addition, there are a few good documentaries aired from time to time on the History Channel and other TV stations that explain the key events of the war.

Vietnam was a political/military strategic defeat for the US. The US strategic centre of gravity was public support at home for the war. Prior to the 1968 Tet Offensive, there actually was a reasonable amount of US public support for Vietnam. This changed after Tet. Lyndon Johnson‘s administration was unable to explain to the American public why the US was in Vietnam and what the objective was that justified the cost in American blood and treasure. US public support for the war rapidly disappeared, destroying the US‘ strategic centre of gravity. Nixon reduced US commitment through "Vietnamisation", and eventually brought the troops back home. This freed the stage for General Giap and the NVA to carry out a large scale conventional campaign that led to the defeat of South Vietnam in 1975.

As to guerrilla warfare being a war crime, Fader/Lui is not correct.

There are two factors to consider here:

- the status of guerrillas (i.e. persons not in uniform or in irregular forces) as legitimate combatants; and

- the means & methods of warfare employed by guerrillas.

STATUS AS LEGITIMATE COMBATANTS

Guerrillas can have status as legitimate combatants, even if they don‘t wear uniforms. According to International Law, the Hague Convention IV, and more specifically Article 1 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Art 1,HIVR of 18 October 1907), members of militias, volunteer corps and organised resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, are combatants provided they:

a. are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b. wear a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance;
c. carry arms openly; and
d. conduct their operations in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict.

Note that a uniform is not required, only a recognisable symbol (e.g. an armband with a symbol, such as the French Maquis‘ famous Cross of Lorraine). Al Qaeda and terrorists do not qualify as legitimate combatants, as they do not comply with Items b, c, and d. In some cases, they do not comply with Item a as well.

MEANS AND METHODS OF WARFARE

International Law (Hague and Geneva Conventions, etc.) prohibits a number of means and methods of warfare (e.g. use of certain weapons, indiscriminate targeting of noncombatants or places/things that are not legitimate military targets without distinction, attacking persons protected under the Geneva Convention, perfidious conduct, etc.). Provided the guerrillas conduct their operations in accordance with the internationally accepted Law of Armed Conflict, they are not committing war crimes.