For TPaine: You fail to understand that, if the conflict is not over within at most a few weeks, our Chinese and Russian friends will be more than glad to help the US Government subdue the "terrorists". There are plenty of Perfumed Princes and Princesses in the military to help them, and New York, San Francisco, and probably MANY other major ports will be glad to debark their soldiers. Somebody postulated that the Only Ones will not be willing to do "scorched earth" against fellow citizens. Not sure what ever gave them THAT idea. And let me assure you that neither the Chinese nor the Russians will have ANY concern about war crimes.
The bottom line? When the time comes, we either remove the sewage rapidly, or we lose. But even in losing, it is worthwhile to destroy as many OathBreakers as possible.
There are no "short victorious insurgencies" to speak of. There are "short, victorious military coups" but that requires a very popular General or Admiral who is willing to lead the military into open revolt to the elected civilian government.
But for an insurgency to work, to win, it will be a LONG WAR. Long hard, bloody, horrible war.
The Vietnamese fought the french for over ten years before they fought the US for another ten years. More than twenty years of conflict against two first world military forces. How did they win? By staying in the game. The Afghan Muj fought the Soviets for a decade.
If a US insurgency were to come to pass it would be a miracle if it ended in under a month with the insurgents on the victor side. Most likely it would end in under a month with WACO or Ruby Ridge repeated on a larger scale. The only way an insurgency ever wins against a superpower is with outside support over the LONG term.
There are a lot of fiction books that describe short insurgencies, and a few that describe long insurgencies. History doesn't support the short victorious insurgent. History says that those who take on a superpower have a long hard, but not impossible task.
4 comments:
Completely agree with you on this one, AM.
Long, hard, costly, horrible.
AP
But who would give the outside support you speak of? Certainly no one who wants to stay in the regime's good graces...
Nations don't have "friends", nations have "interests".
Which is why US and Chinese troops were allies in WWII and enemies in Korea. Sure the fall of the Imperial Government and the rise of Communism had something to do with that, but in reality the people did what they were told.
Would the Communists in Cuba, Venezuela or other radicals not help any force fighting against the "corrupt US government"? Would not the Radical Islamists share their knowledge of IEDs with other insurgents the same way they have with the Mexican Drug Cartels? Remember that the IRA has strong ties to mid east terror networks.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows. We have alternated between allies and adversaries with England since before this country fought for independence.
So don't think that you can predict the actions of the Chinese or Russians when it comes to what they might do.
You win by logistics, the ability to acquire the weapons and munitions needed for victory and the support of the people.
You can capture your weapons but that's uncertain at best. Likely you'll get killed in the attempt sometime. That's why you acquire how-to engineering, gunsmithing, chemistry, machine shop, and power generation materials. Take advantage of the net while it's up.
With the know how you can make your own munitions.
To win the support of the people you help them out. Now. Oppose tyranny, help the downtrodden and homeless, and from those acts you build up a base of popular support and an economic base to supply you with the men and raw materials down the road.
Post a Comment