Why do large, technologically advanced conventional armies almost always lose to low tech guerrilla...........

Question

insurgencies? Does it really just come down to large conventional armies eventually running out of time, money & steam or does guerrilla warfare eventually just drive conventional armies completely crazy because they are so unorthodox?

Answer 1

one word Geneva

Answer 2

Guerrilla army's don't have any rules or people they are accountable to. They are killing innocent people with every bomb but the world doesn't care because there is no country or "people" to hold accountable.

If we did the same thing and didn't worry about the collateral damage we could have won the war a long time ago. But the problem is we'll suffer terrible review from the world.

Here is how we could do it if we didn't care:
1. Take the city with the greatest amount of insurgent violence.
2. Surround the city about 1 mile out and setup checkpoints.
3. Drop leaflets telling everyone they have 3 days to get out and go through a checkpoint. Anyone trying to by-pass will be killed.
4. On day 4 wipe the city off the map. Sweep in and kill anything left.
5. Advertise all the people that this will happen to every city if they don't help the government and "give up" the terrorist hiding among them.
6. At the very least we will have destroyed all their weapons and bomb making supplies. (They can't get through the check points with them.)

Simply put, guerrilla fighters fight to WIN. Large techno armies have to deal with politics so they fight limited wars with rules of engagement.

Side thought...if someone ever tried to take America, you'd see the worst guerrilla war on earth. Think about the normal violence, gangs, hunters and just plain redneck parents that would come out blazing their guns.

Answer 3

They don't always lose: the British defeated an insurgency in Malaya in the 1950s, the French defeated the Algerian insurgency in the early 1960s.

Typically, such wars are between groups fighting for national independence, and a colonial occupier or a national government not seen as legitimate. The guerrilla has the advantage of time: they will always be there, and they can keep their battle very low-key, and thus sustainable, for as long as necessary.

Sometimes they never get beyond this stage- for example the Fretilin guerrillas in East Timor who fought Indonesia.

If their enemy is an occupying power, sooner or later they will have to leave. If their enemy is a government, it will eventually have to incorporate the guerrillas (as in Northern Ireland, or Hammas in Palestine).

To defeat the guerrillas, the occupier has to build up an alternative government that has legitimacy. Unfortunately, it's easy to destroy this legitimacy, and very hard to build it. In such situations the guerrilla war tends to become a civil war.

In the end, to win the guerrilla army must become a conventional army (China 1949, Vietnam in the early 1970s) to finally win.

Answer 4

The problem for large conventional armies is the method of fighting the guerrillas use will always nullify its size and technology. Guerrillas are also usually fighting in the area they are from, so they can blend with the local populace. Guerrilla forces will have a underground element which will provide them with intelligence. This underground does not fight it only provides info for fighting forces. The will also have an auxiliary element to provide support such as transportation and supply. These elements are separate from each other so secrecy can be achieved. Media can also be used as a weapon. Conventional armies who are from a foreign land, wear uniforms, follow rules of war are often hand cuffed into the way to fight them. Guerrilla forces will always prey on weak targets and blend in to the surroundings. The conventional forces must isolate the enemy and find and kill them. As you can imagine this is very difficult. The guerrilla's goal is not to kill all of the enemy but to frustrate, delay, and waste the army's money. An effective anti guerrilla campaign will always take time and patience. Local support is always vital for either side. This will often turn into war of attrition. In a modern democracy this kind of war must be fast or it will end in a victory for the guerrillas. Guerrilla warfare is a very complex issue for any army and it is usually forgotten about until the time to fight it.

Answer 5

No one brought up one of our great examples of guerrilla insurgents fighting advanced conventional armies, and winning -

The American Revolution.

Think about it. To the British Imperial Army, the greatest military force on the planet at the time, WE were the insurgents, terrorists & guerrilla fighters. And we also fought extremely unconventionally, not fighting in conventional troop formations, using ambushes, hit-and-run, and other guerrilla tactics.

The lesson? Don't mess with people who are fighting for their homes, families, and their way of life, on THEIR land.

Unfortunately, many Americans don't seem to understand that non-Americans also have homes, families, and their own way of life that they're willing to fight & die for. To Americans, the only patriots & freedom fighters on this planet are Americans, and pro-Americans. Everybody else is an ignorant, uncivilized, ungrateful barbarian.

Calling them "insurgents" is a propagandastic misnomer used by our political & military leaders, which the media also adopt, in order to persuade the populace who the enemy is.

If we started calling them "freedom fighters" (which many of them are), we'd be faced with a moral dilemma. Maybe they could be right to use any means necessary to kick us out of THEIR land & country, just like we did with the British.

Any American who cannot see the validity of that position is an insensitive or simple-minded hypocrite who is unable or unwilling to put themselves in the shoes of others.

Answer 6

It comes down to a will to win.

Does Bush have the will to win? He must, because he's derided for it by people that don't have it.

I can assure you that 218 of the members of the House of Representatives don't have it. They told us that last week.

You apparently don't either, judging by the presumption of your question. Apparently you think that once the other army is defeated, the victor has lost because there's nothing left but insurgency.

If your presumption was true, David Koresh would be alive today, and the KKK would be running the South, and South Korea wouldn't need the US or even their own army to protect themselves from North Korea.

So to answer your question, it has nothing to do with insurgencies having an inherent advantage because of tactics, it has to do with with who has the will to win. Liberals apparently have a will to lose that defies logic.

Answer 7

Insurgencies can be beaten the key to beating them is out terrorizing the insurgents and doing whatever it takes to win the Romans and Germans were very good at it. In Poland and France, during the height of the German occupation, very little resistance against the occupiers went down, because mass slaughter everywhere in a 25-mile radius has a fabulously clarifying effect on most working brains. The Romans - who had 400,000 troops stretched across the vastness of their empire - realized early on that the fabulous benefits of Roman citizenship, which surely every sentient being desired (even if they didn't know it), sometimes took the threat of slavery and/or murder to fasten its hooks in the minds of the conquered.
That's how you mount a good counterinsurgency.

If your going to play Mr.Nice Guy then pack up and go home because your not going to win.

Answer 8

Large technological armies have all the equipment and expertise to wipe out those who practice guerrilla warfare. The reason they don't is because to get them would require wiping out lots and lots of innocent civilians with them.

Answer 9

such a number of solutions... dude you're very youthful. do not say that "i'm a pupil so i are not getting time for something". you have each and all of the time. consume regardless of you want to. purely pass exterior in night and play some exterior video games. particularly soccer, Badminton, Cricket etc etc. Play as much as you may. Play soccer each and every day for an hour or 2 and you will see the diversities.

Answer 10

it's because guerrilla fighters do not care whether or not they injure civilians just as long as they kill a lot of enemy soldiers and they use hit and run techniques whereas organized military forced have to abide by rules and travel in large groups that make perfect targets.

Answer 11

Ideology does not define the right or wrong side. It's national vital interests that define the ultimate outcome of a conflict. In 50 years the middle east will be free to consume itself. Until then they will conform to western ideology or eastern (China) ideology. The bottom line is that they will conform.