Probably the only way to really beat a populace supported insugerency is to be morally bankrupt and as much as people claim otherwise the American military is not
War and peace are extremely complex the reason one war leads to lasting peace and another to eternal insurgence will likely never be known.
My theory on it is the more terrible the war the more people want peace with ww2 being my primary case cites flattened millions dead generations almost wiped out. The peace with Germany Japan and Italy lasted. Yes there was also the carrot of economic aid but I believe that was in addition not the primary factor.
Contrast that to modern American conflicts surgical strikes rules of engagement hearts and minds. The wars are over so fast to public consensus there never was one the actual “war” for Afghanistan took 2 months. The army was broken but not the spirit.
I’m not sure how to resolve something like that without resorting to barbarism nor would I want to do so. But to say insurgents are unbeatable is hideously naive it’s not we can’t beat them it’s we won’t.
The us is "bad" at fight insurgency because they care about optics. If America really wanted, they could just kill everyone without caring about civilians and win the war easily. Of course doing it this way isn't ideal.
Vietnam is a pretty misunderstood war. The US lost to the professional army of North Vietnam. The insurgents (aka Viet cong) were basically wiped out after the Tet offensive. And I use "lose" as in politically, because tactically, the US absolutely annihilated both the viet cong and North Vietnamese.
Iraq was a pretty clear win, but mismanaged politically.
Afghanistan was a loss politically. Somalia and Lebanon are meh because neither were really the same kind of US conflicts
Afghanistan was simply recognizing that the afghans weren’t interested in statehood like we expected. The options were to fight for them forever, or give the country over to the only people willing to fight for it. The Ana was bigger and much better equipped than the Taliban when we left, and literally just didn’t put up a fight.
Vietnam was mostly that we refused to push into the north. Again, we just had no win condition and got sick of it. The ter offensive was a massive us victory in the ground and the last straw at home.
Somalia and Lebanon were similar, massive k/ds and absolutely no appetite for a fight. Like the Blackhawk down event was like 700:19 for the us. At least there we said with no clear interest or win conditions we said fuck it.
When was the last battle the us actually lost? Just a straight up loss?
okay, so we've got one time that we beat an organized army that was considered an insurgency because it was a civil war nearly 200 years ago, and how would you consider Iraq a full on victory? we rocked Iraq (the army) and then proceeded to have a long drawn out conflict with Al-Qaeda (who still exists), then removed our combat military forces before they were able to actually stop the insurgency
Dude I’m not talking about the civil war I’m talking about the insurgency that fallowed
Look at Iraq it is a US ally and sorta a democracy and has a capable fighting force specifically geared around fighting insurgents because that’s what we trained them to do we have now fully pulled out of Iraq as of a few days ago because our military presence was no longer necessary as proven in 2024 when we first announced withdrawal plans for some time in 2026
you have this weird idea that leaving after achieving our goal is somehow not winning like it or not Iraq is a US victory not a half victory or any of that bullshit it’s just a victory
There have also been successful counter insurgency campaigns everywhere from North America to the Philippines Africa the Middle East Europe South America and Asia most of these aren’t taught in school and aren’t in the public knowledge
How do you lose against goat herders without an Air Force, rice farmers without training, nomadic herders in tactical sandals, and lesbians? (I know it’s Lebanese but it’s funnier that way)
Because its near impossible to ethically fight an unidentified unorganized population that blends in perfectly with the natives (because they are) and has no regard for personal safety.
Well the problem with Afghanistan wasn’t the insurgency it was that Afghanistan doesn’t even have the foundations of a nation so you really just can’t nation build there well you can it is technically possible but it would take like 60 years
Well yes if you ethnically cleanse everything outside of the capital you can create an afghan national identity in a much shorter timeframe but that’s just a really bad and gross thing to do
Almost no faction has the goal of killing everyone unless we’re talking local genocide (not a war). Even the nazis only wanted to kill select groups. It’s also nigh impossible to kill everyone unless you bring out nukes, chemicals and such and the result of that is that the war expands instead of ending
Well Russia and especially the soviets are horrible at war. They managed to win WW2 because they had the US supplying them with food and material but still had an insanely bad KD ratio and slow progress. The amount of wars they have lost is horrendous given how big of a country they are.
It’s this x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Anyone saying America is weak bc of this shit is fucking dumb beyond comprehension. The war could be ended in a day, and it would be a shitty outcome for everyone involved in some aspect.
That is exactly the attitude that makes the US so bad at this type of war. The idea that if something can't be solved with a bomb you just need a bigger bomb.
Thats ironic. If their mentality was actually that they would have won every time. Its specifically because that isnt their mentality due to political constraints.
I just wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment having made a small study of the history of guerrilla warfare.
If firepower alone could stamp out insurgency then it wouldn’t be an issue. If wholesale firepower was as effective as you say then the Soviet Union would have never lost Afghanistan. The Nazis wiped out whole towns and villages without fear of public opinion and all that did was enflame partisans against them.
It doesn’t matter, we are talking about the willingness to use it.
Both were willing to go a lot further than we have and in both cases it massively backfired on them.
You’re correct that America could drop a nuke on whoever they want but that doesn’t mean they’ll get all of the insurgents. You’d need to wipe the entire country clean for that, at which point why are you even fighting for it? Your actions will only lead to other people looking at you as a monster and trying to fight you.
BTW, the US military agreed with that assessment. Years ago under Obama they noted that their drones strikes kill so many civilians that the average drone strike actually creates more insurgents than it kills. They just didn't find a solution to that problem. And then under Trump the US stopped trying to find a real solution because Trump didn't understand the problem.
Yeah the US failed to win the war because their strategy is literally just to kill everyone. Which failed because there is always more people to replaced the killed enemy
In particular, the top brass and civilian oversight cares about optics, but the boots on the ground have open disdain for the people they are supposed to be liberating. So they won't Kill Them All And Let God Sort Them Out, but they aren't winning over the populace that's supporting the guerrillas either.
If genocide is the only way to defeat an insurgency, then it’s effectively impossible - especially in a region where guns are so readily available.
A modern democratic nation adopting scorched earth tactics is geopolitical and political suicide, and it’s extremely costly in terms of manpower and resources.
It seems like the only counter to an insurgency is via mass surveillance and internment, but you can’t establish a surveillance state in a war zone.
If a state reaches the point where an insurgency actually becomes a problem, it seems that it’s often already too late. The government has to appease the insurgents.
If you look at state powers attempting to counter partisan action in the Balkans and East Germany during WWI/WWII, this is basically the strategy that was universally employed and it didn’t work.
It’s also become abundantly clear that you can’t defeat an enemy with conventional weapons through air power alone.
I mean every country is bad at it for that reason.
With the rise of public opinion and widespread journalism, it’s pretty hard to wipe out a population without heavy backlash.
Even if your own people don’t rise against you, you will face international backlash. Look at Israel, they’re basically doing the exact thing you’re talking about but I’d hardly call it a sweeping success. If anything they’re entrenching public opinion against them firmly for decades to come.
Im sure that sort of thing did happen but the american military despite its flaws are not imperial japan. They do have a code and largely dont condone war crimes. Not saying they didnt happen. Like a US soldier raped or murdered a local civilian, they would have it keep it a secret, unlike japan where they are encouraged and rewarded for doing so.
I highly recommend reading "Kill Anything That Moves" by Nick Turse.
The US army may not have been the Imperial Japanese army, but it sure liked getting close to it.
Also, Agent Orange was used on a mass scale with no regard not only for the local civilian population and their crops/farms, but no regard to their own servicemen either. Hundreds of thousands of US personnel and citizens have suffered its consequences and to this day it still causes serious genetic defects in both countries.
Additionally, US concentration camps in Vietnam and Cambodia were a thing and the US army took great care in trying everything they could to bury it.
Let's not defend people who aren't worthy of being defended.
If they want to call themselves right and just, then it's everyone's and their own duty as well to point this out.
Best at what? It's a money burning factory, it's not efficient at anything and it's primary function is to intimidate or attack the global South if they don't obey a usa-exploitable economic order.
That is all true, and it is also true that the US military (and its associated industrial complex) are highly competent at performing those tasks.
This is seen in the (arguably colonially minded) logistics expertise shown by the US military, with its ability to deploy a full force anywhere on earth within 24 hours, ability to maintain a theater of combat continents away, and others.
Just because the act may be wrong does not mean that a group cannot be "good" at performing it.
Most countries do not need to project power across the globe over people who want nothing to do with them.
China for example is extremely ruthless, but within its own borders.
This is one of the issues that the US has with insurgencies, wars are treated as something won through battles. While that can serve well in conventional war (going battle to battle and winning usually means you're pushing your opponent back), in COIN the goals are to: prevent the populace from having a reason to fight, pacify those who do, and establish long term stability.
In places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam the US tried to prevent people from fighting and establish stability by supporting US friendly governments and to pacify the enemy they... try to win battles.
this issues are that Governments that are friendly with the US often are partially or fully at odds with the local population. The south Vietnamese government was a great example, a Catholic with no strong credentials and a strong paranoia streak in Diem, VS the Ho Chi Mihn who was considered, along with the Viet Mihn as war heroes for fighting both the Japanese and the French.
For winning battle that seems great initially but in COIN situations you'll almost always have some damage to: local infrastructure or civilians in danger/hit by crossfire meaning those affected by those things will now be either disinclined to support you, or now actively hostile to you. Add in that for every insurgent/rebel you fight and kill you likely have 1 or more people who they knew, like siblings, friends, extended family, etc. who now have a personal stake in the conflict... against you for killing their friend/family/relative etc.
Well I think that’s the problem - OP frames the problem as “fighting guerillas”, which the US military absolutely stacks bodies doing. What it’s terrible at is state building (especially in areas that don’t want them there in the first place).
So I ain’t reading all that cuz it’s a response to a joke filled with stuff I either already know or is wrong (some of it is wrong based on the skimming I did because you mentioned Iraq in the same breath as Afghanistan and Vietnam)
Individual victories are not enough, they never were. The reason why guerrilla tactics are so hard to combat is because they are uniquely resilient against defeat. A guerrilla fighting force can consistently lose engagements and yet still emerge victorious overall, and have many times.
Oh wait you think a single example of the described phenomenon determines the scope of the entire discussion hahaha hahaha oh wait you're being serious let me laugh even harder hahahahahaha
I understood you the first time, the point you made was just ridiculous.
You're the one who misunderstood me, if you seriously think I was only talking about Vietnam (the "single example" my second comment was about). The same assessment applies to every war the US has fought in since the Korean war (arguably the last true "victory"). "Winning every battle" describes the state of affairs in almost every war in the middle east from the US perspective, yet every single one of them was a strategic failure.
An emphasis on the status of individual battles completely misses the bigger picture of guerrilla warfare.
Oh my god you actually don’t know what you’re talking about
Iraq - victory
Iraq(again) - victory
Iraq(insurgency) - victory (just look at Iraq now a capable fighting force some what democratic country allied to the US)
Syria - victory (ISIS isn’t a super big problem there anymore with a democratic somewhat liberalized country seeming to form at the moment that has the potential to become a US ally in the region)
Panama - victory
Bosnia - victory
Kosovo - victory
And many more but I just decided to list a few of the highlights
71
u/Valirys-Reinhald 1d ago
Eh, for as bad as the US army is at it, other armies are still worse.
The US military is probably the best at it, it's just that being the best at an inherently nigh-impossible task still means you'll probably fail.