What gov'ts have won foreign wars against guerilla fighters?

Question

UK failed in the US Revolution
Napoleon failed against Spain
US failed against N. Vietnam

Does it ever work?

Answer 1

Very often, but it depends in part on your definition of 'worked'. And of 'guerilla'. But if we use guerilla in the sense of 'insurgent', someone fighting against the 'established order' in a country then:

Greek Civil War 1944 to 1947 (and beyond). Anti-Nazi forces split left and right, and fought a bitter civil war. The English moved a very large force in very early (robbing troops from the fighting in Italy and crippling their efforts there).

Philipines. Huk forces were largely defeated with US assistance following WW2. Many of the US advisors involved in this campaign then moved on to Vietnam.

Malaya. British forces largely brought under control a communist insurgency in the 1960's, although resistance continued up until the 1990's near the Thai border. British methods included relocating populations to 'controlled' villages

A good question actually, because if you look at why these counter-insurgency efforts 'worked' you begin to see why the other efforts didn't. Basically it required sufficient troops to do the job, a combination of civil+military+political force, and (most significantly) a large/wide support base for the COUNTER-insurgency in the foreign country.

The other observation is about insurgents and guerilla fighters. The difference (in outcome) is largely about whether the character of the fight is 'nationalist' (eg representing the interests of the majority of people in the country) or insurgent (representing a minority). The term 'guerilla' really defines the 'method', not the character of the fight.

Spain, the US, Vietnam were all 'nationalist' fights. In all of history very few 'nationalist' movements haven't 'won' in the end. The only way for a foreign power to win against a nationalist movement is complete destruction, or to subvert it by splitting a single nationalist 'movement' into factions and playing them off against one another, eventually 'promoting' the faction that best resembles the foreign powers 'interests'.

And - finally - if you look at the definition of 'won', you might say that by pulling out of Vietnam between 1972 and 1975 the US effectively 'won' by freeing up resources to tackle the USSR in other theatres, and by allowing the tensions between the Vietnamese, the Cambodians and the Chinese to come to the fore. By the same token, a 'free' USA ended up being far more valuable to Britain in two world wars than a fractious colony.

Answer 2

Maybe the British in the Malayan Emergency. However the independence of Malaya on 1957-08-31 may have been the main reason of the defeat of the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA).

"The conflicts in Malaya and Vietnam have been compared many times and it has been asked by historians how a British force of 35,000 succeeded where over a half million U.S. and others soldiers failed. However the two conflicts differ in several key points."

"- The MRLA was isolated and without external supporters. The USSR and China were too involved in Korea to give serious aid to the MNLA and the geography - Malaysia is a peninsula is helpful."

"- The MRLA was politically isolated from the bulk of the population. It was, as mentioned above, a political movement almost entirely limited to ethnic Chinese; support among Muslim Malayans and smaller tribes was scattered if existent at all."

"- Malay nationalists supported the British because they promised independence in a Malay state; a MRLA victory would imply a Chinese dominated state ruled from Moscow or Beijing. For the same reason international criticism of Britain was limited."

"- Britain never approached the Emergency as a conventional conflict and quickly implemented an effective combined intelligence (led by Malayan Police Special Branch against the political arm of the guerrilla movement) and a 'hearts and minds' operation. At all levels, command was through a small committee of army, police and civilian administration officials, which allowed intelligence to be rapidly evaluated and disseminated."

"- Many Malayans had fought side by side with the British against the Japanese occupation in World War II, including Chin Peng. This is in contrast to Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) where French colonial officials often operated as proxies and collaborators to the Japanese. This factor of trust between the locals and the colonials was what gave the British an advantage over the French and later, the Americans in Vietnam; Commonwealth troops saw ordinary civilians as allies, not enemies."

"Malayan Emergency" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency#Guerrilla_war

Answer 3

Erik's answer is very good in its analysis of a particular case of an insurgency's being put down, but nandadevi's answer is, in my opinion, better overall, and is in fact one of the best answers I've read on this forum, particularly considering the controversial nature of the subject. Although I am not sure I agree with the conclusions in his final paragraph, nandadevi's answer is concise, well-reasoned, and backed by facts. He makes a very good case why some insurgencies fail while others succeed. Based on this, can you see why the attempts to put down the Iraqi insurgency have failed?

I tend to be very selective about the questions I answer, and do not usually weigh in unless I have something significant to add to what has already been said. However, although I am a long-time student of military history, and have thought a lot about insurgencies in general, and some in particular, I could not do a better job myself then these two gentlemen have done. Bravo.

Answer 4

UK against the Boers

I think the US ended Phillipine guerrilla resistance as well, but I'm not sure.