I don't think relatively recent history demonstrates that victory is the inevitable outcome for the numerically and technically superior force. Again I would cite the Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan, the US defeat in Viet Nam and Somalia and the continued survival of Al Queda.Militias played an important role in the American Revolution, although I don't think it was decisive.
I would also point out that highly motivated amateur and combat hardened veteran are by no means mutually exclusive.
I simply can't accept the notion that the resistance of tens of millions of armed Americans is not relevant. Is that the argument that you are making?
Starting with the last part first. You've just bumped into an area I have interest in and hence I'm making arguments more or less for the sake of making arguments as opposed to making them for some higher political purpose or to push some agenda.
That said I probably do view the situation differently then you do. As a rule I don't think the American people have all that much to fear from the governments military by and large. We can add all sorts of caveats to this but fundamentally I think America's culture has provided America's people with the best defense against military tyranny that one can possibly get - even better then an armed population. Americans - and that includes America's soldiers believe, deeply and profoundly, in freedom. I think they'd be useless in attempting to enforce a military dictatorship if that required gunning the people down in droves. Even a few borderline cases during the Vietnam era caused wrenching soul searching by the people and the state.
The battle to stop tyranny is fought and won with nearly every citizen when that citizen is just a wee tot and indoctrinated into the founding mythologies of America including its pantheon of hero's like Paul Revere and villains like Benedict Arnold. I don't think any amount of training can take that away - not from most of the troops anyway. They won't oppress Americans - at least not on any scale needed to impose government tyranny. Now something like Civil War is possible because both sides would believe that they were fighting for freedom and one could see a situation where half of all Americans want X while the other half want Y and that breaks down into violence. Which is, in truth, how one gets most modern tyranny's, 40% to 60% of the population wants X and those that disagree are oppressed. I suppose I could see the army being used to quash a violent minority (or perceived minority) who refuse to get with the program, whatever the program happens to be. But 10 of millions of free American's fighting against a tiny group of elites that happen to include the generals of the army is a scenario that can't happen in America because the army would turn on the elites.
Now back to the first question. I think what we see is that victory in battle is in fact nearly impossible - but that one can loose and even be slaughtered and still win politically. Hence back to the question of whether or not one can conquer, say Colorado. Truth is I'm not sure because two cultural elements of America kind of clash in this scenario (leaving aside just how friggen far fetched it is to imagine some one conquering Colorado). Americans are obvously good material for becoming freedom fighters...but their also individualistic and have a great sense of personal value.
Winning this kind of asymmetrical war in the modern era means being crushed, even slaughtered, at every battle, often doing minuscule, near insignificant damage. Dieing at the rate of 10, 15 even 20 to 1 against ones oppressors and doing this on such a scale that the occupying power can't afford the losses anymore.
Can we really motivate the patriotic residents of Colorado to repeatedly go forth knowing that when they launch their ambush almost all of them are sure to die and if they are really lucky they might manage to kill or badly wound a single enemy combatant? Initially when the pattern is not so clear sure - but after years when this rate of exchange is just a given? I'm really unsure if Americans are willing to give up their lives on a consistent basis for such a small rate of return.
This, fundamentally, was why it was so easy to conquer France or Belgium in World War II but not say Russia. The Belgians where not willing to die in droves if it mean just taking one or two Germans with them - the fatalistic Russian peasants were.
Total War (as in, the bringing to bare the full force and resources of a state against an enemy) would have resulted in victory in Afghanistan or Vietnam very quickly. The number of troops and resources either superpower could have deployed in a Total War situation would have been far too much for the insurgents to deal with. Debellatio would probably ensue, and the amount of resistance would decrease once it became clear that the occupying forces were essentially limitless.
The increased brutality of total war reduces resistance around the time when Nuclear Weapons would be deployed, too. Knowing that resistance equals annihilation worked well against the Japanese in World War 2, and they were certainly just as fanatical in their beliefs as the current band of insurgents are.
Thankfully that sort of level of warfare isn't politically tenable in the west anymore. Which means you've got to be smart instead, and to use the horrible cliche, win 'Hearts and Minds'. The Malayan Insurgency and the British response to that offer some guidance on how best to do such a thing, as does the recent Surge, political and policing measures in Iraq.
I have to wonder if Total War would have even worked in South Vietnam. I mean obviously if one flooded the country with 7 million American troops the Americans would have been perfectly capable of controlling the whole place. However that does not really change the opinions of the South Vietnamese - it just makes resistance clearly futile. The problem then becomes how long is America willing to sit on South Vietnam with 7 million troops? That's quite the price to pay for the place and the question becomes - can America keep 7 milliln troops deployed here for long enough for North Vietnam to stop dreaming about a unified Vietnam? Considering that the dream of a unified Vietnam might be something that could last a long, long, time I don't see how this is possible.
The Russians face the same problem - victory in Afghanistan is possible but their actual enemy mostly is not in Afghanistan, as is the case today the enemy resistance is mainly in Pakistan. In effect I'm not quite sure what total war gets us here except increasing the burden of maintaining the occupying force.
I don't think relatively recent history demonstrates that victory is the inevitable outcome for the numerically and technically superior force. Again I would cite the Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan, the US defeat in Viet Nam and Somalia and the continued survival of Al Queda.Militias played an important role in the American Revolution, although I don't think it was decisive.
I would also point out that highly motivated amateur and combat hardened veteran are by no means mutually exclusive.
I simply can't accept the notion that the resistance of tens of millions of armed Americans is not relevant. Is that the argument that you are making?
Starting with the last part first. You've just bumped into an area I have interest in and hence I'm making arguments more or less for the sake of making arguments as opposed to making them for some higher political purpose or to push some agenda.
That said I probably do view the situation differently then you do. As a rule I don't think the American people have all that much to fear from the governments military by and large. We can add all sorts of caveats to this but fundamentally I think America's culture has provided America's people with the best defense against military tyranny that one can possibly get - even better then an armed population. Americans - and that includes America's soldiers believe, deeply and profoundly, in freedom. I think they'd be useless in attempting to enforce a military dictatorship if that required gunning the people down in droves. Even a few borderline cases during the Vietnam era caused wrenching soul searching by the people and the state.
The battle to stop tyranny is fought and won with nearly every citizen when that citizen is just a wee tot and indoctrinated into the founding mythologies of America including its pantheon of hero's like Paul Revere and villains like Benedict Arnold. I don't think any amount of training can take that away - not from most of the troops anyway. They...
I concur with a number of your points. I have a hard time seeing Americans pulling the nuclear trigger on tens of million of their fellow Americans. I'm not saying it could never happen, but I think it makes the total war argument at least questionable. Conversely it's entirely possible that some troops in favor of rebellion might launch against the "enemy" or take control of nukes in the event of tyranny. Therefor I am compelled to agree with the hazards against Americans annihilating fellow Americans. On the other hand this could go both ways. There are numerous examples of people just following orders in the name of patriotism.
Ultimately I suppose there are countless scenarios, but I'm still convinced that a well armed and well informed population is bulwark against tyranny.
|
Barring the use of NBC weapons for the sake of argument, is it your position that armed resistance against a technologically and militarily superior force is inevitably doomed?
Not surprisingly I believe that armed insurgencies continue to be viable. I also believe an armed populous has value as a deterrent against invasion and tyranny. Do you believe an armed populous has zero or little value in this regard?
Yes, if the occupying force is committed to the cause (which they are if they've gone onto a Total War footing), then armed insurgencies will not succeed. It's a battle of wills, really. Who wants it more. Military armed insurgencies can't do much, but politically they can. It's tough, but I think modern militaries are adapting to do what's required.
Strippers and the Cuban embargo
Most of the warrantless financial searches the feds have ordered under the PATRIOT Act have had no connection to terrorism. Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation observed,
There is no probable cause here. There is no judicial oversight. Yet the government can immediately query financial institutions across the nation to find out where you have an account or who you’ve done business with. It’s not just if you have an account there, but any record of a financial transaction.
The feds used PATRIOT Act financial sweep-search powers in 2003 in “Operation G-String,” an investigation of bribes involving Las Vegas strip clubs. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) complained, “It was never my intent to have the PATRIOT Act used as a kitchen sink for all of the law-enforcement-tool goodies that the FBI has been trying to get for the last decades…. It is PATRIOT Act creep.” Berkley was especially indignant that the powers had been used in a tawdry public corruption case: “Never … did the FBI say we needed additional tools to keep this nation safe from strip-club operators.”
This sounds a lot like what happened in the 80's with Traci Lords. I'd advise you check out her story on Biography on A&E- its fascinating how quickly the government moved to create laws to stamp out the evils of pornography and how fast they got people in court despite the other issues facing the country at the time.
I have a hard time seeing Americans pulling the nuclear trigger on tens of million of their fellow Americans.
What if the ones with the trigger view the others not as fellow Americans, but as pawns of Satan's New World Order who are responsible for destroying America's moral fiber and ruining its future? (This question isn't necessarily rhetorical, by the way -- we have senior officers who think exactly that.)
I have a hard time seeing Americans pulling the nuclear trigger on tens of million of their fellow Americans.What if the ones with the trigger view the others not as fellow Americans, but as pawns of Satan's New World Order who are responsible for destroying America's moral fiber and ruining its future? (This question isn't necessarily rhetorical, by the way -- we have senior officers who think exactly that.)
I would never rule it out entirely. Far be it from to bet against human stupidity.
|
SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!!
SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!!
SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!! SAINTS WON!!!
that's wat conservatives say.
It does not follow that conservatives or liberals have their beliefs formed by cable news. It's simply non-sequitor, and it belittles everyone involved.While the echo chamber effect is a legitimate concern, I would caution you not to make an error in reasoning about causality. There were plenty of conservatives in this country long before Rush or Fox, and there were quite a few liberals before MSNBC. Implying that none of these people can think for themselves seems to me an intellectually vacant argument. I infer that's what you mean by "in their pocket".
I think it's childish to simply dismiss some ones argument by basically calling them names. That's one of the reasons I edited my reply to you. I initially asked if you could be more vacant etc which would made me look fairly silly for criticizing and ad hominem with an ad hominem, and it was needlessly snarky.
Apolitically, I can think of quite few communications professors (conservatives as well) who might disagree with this assertion. I'm speaking as an independent.
People aren't very discerning, and they will believe the sum of information they have been exposed to is always enough to make a rational decision, when it almost never is.
I'm not picking a fight with you on a matter of politics, I just hope that maybe you'll revisit the idea that both "sides" in this country are pretty heavily parroting what they've heard instead of thinking rationally. The mass media (neither liberal nor conservative, just selfish and broken) are hurting this country.
I'm not asserting that no one's influenced by cable news or other main stream media, and I'm sure there is quite a bit of parroting or echoing going on. There is certainly no shortage of stupid or lazy people, but to say people of a certain persuasion are stupid or incapable of independent thought does nothing to move the discussion forward.
I'm not asserting that no one's influenced by cable news or other main stream media, and I'm sure there is quite a bit of parroting or echoing going on. There is certainly no shortage of stupid or lazy people, but to say people of a certain persuasion are stupid or incapable of independent thought does nothing to move the discussion forward.
Usually it tells more about the person making such statements, than the people they are making the statements about.
Barring the use of NBC weapons for the sake of argument, is it your position that armed resistance against a technologically and militarily superior force is inevitably doomed?
Not surprisingly I believe that armed insurgencies continue to be viable. I also believe an armed populous has value as a deterrent against invasion and tyranny. Do you believe an armed populous has zero or little value in this regard?
Yes, if the occupying force is committed to the cause (which they are if they've gone onto a Total War footing), then armed insurgencies will not succeed. It's a battle of wills, really. Who wants it more. Military armed insurgencies can't do much, but politically they can. It's tough, but I think modern militaries are adapting to do what's required.
Barring the use of NBC weapons for the sake of argument, is it your position that armed resistance against a technologically and militarily superior force is inevitably doomed?Yes, assuming the technologically and militarily superior force is willing to annihilate the resistance and any possible supporters entirely. Genocide isn't generally politically tenable, though.
The first tends to support my position, the second Kirths, and the third MIB & Uzzy.
|
|
Hmm. I'd say the First Chechen War supports my point too. The Russians lost around 5,500 men (disputed) in the first one, and around the same number (disputed) in the Second Chechen War. However, the troops became rapidly demoralised in the First Chechen War, and the Russian public was almost universally opposed to it, so Yeltsin had to sign a ceasefire.
Naturally, this didn't happen in the Second Chechen War, something I think was due to the reason it started, the Moscow Apartment Bombings, and continued Chechen terrorist attacks against Russia, most notably Beslan in 2004. No government would survive unless they continued fighting against people who did that (or at least, people they blamed for it)
Hmm. I'd say the First Chechen War supports my point too. The Russians lost around 5,500 men (disputed) in the first one, and around the same number (disputed) in the Second Chechen War. However, the troops became rapidly demoralised in the First Chechen War, and the Russian public was almost universally opposed to it, so Yeltsin had to sign a ceasefire.
Naturally, this didn't happen in the Second Chechen War, something I think was due to the reason it started, the Moscow Apartment Bombings, and continued Chechen terrorist attacks against Russia, most notably Beslan in 2004. No government would survive unless they continued fighting against people who did that (or at least, people they blamed for it)
I don't think any thing in the example of the first Chechen war contradicts your points, but I would still tend to cite it as an example of a "successful" irregular action.
I would tend to say that the collapse of the economy and infrastructure supports Kirth's observations and that said collapse renders the tactical victory basically Pyrrhic.
Clearly the out come of the second war supports what you said in spite of continued sporadic violence.
I stand by my core assertion that Irregular resistance can be effective, but this is a topic of ongoing interest to me, so I may post some more of my reading from time to time if the OP doesn't object. I appreciate the feedback from you and Jeremy in particular.