#36336
Profile photo of sledjockey
sledjockey
Bushcrafter
member8

<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>74 wrote:</div>Sled, what you state is true. Particularly about the current state of affairs. However where we are now is more about how force was applied after the shock & awe stage. We took our foot off their throats due to geopolitical forces. Using WW2 methods say like Dresden type bombing there would be no local problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. The rest of the world might be a problem but not those 2 places. Very few guerrilla wars have been ultimately sucsessful in all of the worlds history. I don’t expect the current mess to be any different. The real balance of powers will only change from a full on winner take all war. That’s why ISIS needs a unified Islamic world to conduct an asymmetrical global war. If we have conflict with ISIS, Russia & China at the same time it will be our end. They don’t need to be unified.

Guerrilla wars not successful?
US Alone:
American Revolution – conventional warfare is where we lost the most people
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan (both current and USSR wars)

Worldwide:
Mongols…. Enough said there
Ireland
Against Napoleon
Mexican Revolution
South Africa
Anglo-Zulu war
Visigoths against Rome
Cuba

The results can be debated for any war, but there are many decisive results in just that list.

Guerrilla warfare is a different tactic than force on force. That is all. Large forces have the disadvantage due to ability to react quick enough and properly close with to destroy their enemy when they can’t find them.

The problems in Iraq and Afghanistan go beyond politics and world views. The only real way to remove the enemy in a guerrilla war such as over there is to irradiate the entire population. That goes beyond politics or world views.

http://ageofdecadence.com