Tag Archives: guerrilla warfare

Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW: How Militia Groups are America’s Domestic Viet Cong, from ammo.com

The US government couldn’t beat guerrillas in Vietnam and the Middle East. What makes anyone think it would be any more successful against the well-armed, homegrown variety? From ammo.com:

“It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.”

Col. Jeff Cooper

When one discusses the real reason for the Second Amendment – the right of citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government – inevitably someone points out the stark difference in firepower between a guerilla uprising in the United States and the United States government itself.

This is not a trivial observation. The U.S. government spends more on the military than the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. Plus, the potential of a tyrannical government is arguably upon us – with the federal government spying on its own citizens, militarizing local police departments with equipment and tactics from the War on Terror, and repeatedly searching Americans, which desensitizes them to this invasive process.

There is much historical precedent, however, for guerilla uprisings defeating more powerful enemies. For instance, the Cold War saw both superpowers brought to their knees by rural farmers – for the Soviets, their adventure in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, and for the United States, the Vietnam War against the Viet Cong.

In both cases, nuclear weapons could have been used against the guerilla uprising, but were not. Even assuming the use of nuclear weapons from the position of total desperation, it’s hard to imagine they would have made much of a difference in the final outcome of either conflict. Unlike the invading armies, the local resistance enjoyed both broad-based support as well as knowledge of the local terrain.

Continue reading→

 

Advertisements

Doug Casey on Syria and Afghanistan

It’s never too late to abandon a bad idea. From Doug Casey at caseyresearch.com:

Justin’s note: President Trump is pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Syria.

And frankly, it’s about damn time. After all, the U.S. government has already wasted more than $1 trillion fighting these wars, not to mention all the lives that have been lost.

Still, many people are critical of this decision. To find out why, I got Doug Casey on the phone. Below, you’ll find his take on this important development…


Justin: Doug, Trump is pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Syria. And I think most Americans would agree that this is the right thing to do.

But both Democrat and Republican politicians have been highly critical of this decision. Why is that?

Doug: It’s more clear evidence of how the Deep State has totally captured the U.S. government. Recall that the Deep State is not a formal conspiracy of any type. It’s composed of perhaps a couple thousand powerful congressmen, bureau chiefs, lobbyists, corporate heads, generals, lawyers, academics, and media people that share a common worldview.

The character of the U.S. has changed a lot since the Vietnam War. And quite radically over the last generation or so. Constant low-grade war is today’s leitmotif. The U.S. is actively at war in at least two countries, has something on the order of 700 or 800 bases in over 100 other countries, and is constantly prodding the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians, among others.

U.S. soldiers are not welcome in any of the places where they’re stationed – except by local quislings, professional cronies, and lickspittles. So pulling out of Afghanistan and Syria – however belatedly – is one of the few intelligent things that Trump said he was going to do and may actually do. But I’ll believe it when I see it.

Continue reading

“The Federals Are Coming!” by Jeff Thomas

The next financial crisis will bring a general clamoring for the government to do something, which always translate to more power for the government and less for its subjects. From jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:

Americans were taught about Paul Revere’s ride in school. He was said to have ridden from his home in the North End of Boston, to Lexington and Concord, to warn the people there that Federal troops had landed in Boston Harbour and would soon reach the townships.

Of course, the story was tarted up a bit for the history books. First, it’s unlikely that he shouted, “The British are coming,” since, at the time of the ride, in 1775, he was in fact British – a British colonial – and would have regarded himself as British, as would the townspeople.

It’s also unlikely that he galloped through the towns shouting, “To arms! To arms!” since a major portion of the British colonists, particular those who were older and had a lot to lose, were loyalists, and taking up arms would be treasonous. (At that time, treason was one of only two capital crimes.)

So, what did he shout on his ride… or did he in fact shout anything? It’s more likely that he simply went to the back doors of select sympathisers and asked them to spread the word that the Federal troops were on the way. But, of course, that would have made for a far less colourful story.

Continue reading

Doug Casey on the Future of War

Most of the warfare of the future will probably be counterinsurgency against irrregular guerrilla forces, fought by special operations forces. From Doug Casey at caseyresearch.com:

Justin note: Something’s stuck with me since the last time I spoke with Doug Casey.

Earlier this month, we discussed the new “era of peace” in the Korean Peninsula. Doug talked about a meme floating around the internet saying that the US could employ a new super weapon dubbed the “Rod from God.”

While this weapon probably won’t be deployed anytime soon… it got me thinking about the future of war.

Specifically, how they’ll be fought and how they’ll be different from past wars.

I called up Doug for more on this idea…


Justin: Doug, how will wars of the future be fought differently than today?

Doug: Well, war’s evolving in several ways. For starters, we won’t see as many nation states fighting each other. There will, instead, be more conflict between nation states and non-state entities like so-called terrorist organizations.

Over the last 30 or so years terrorism has become a buzzword, supposedly one of the greatest evils of our era. But “terrorism” is simply a method of warfare. So you can’t fight terrorism. It’s like saying you can fight artillery barrages, cavalry charges or frontal assaults. Terrorism isn’t a thing, it’s a tactic.

There are about 100 separate definitions of terrorism. I’m not sure any two US Government agencies can even agree on one. It’s a little like trying to define pornography using the standard of the rather confused Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said “I know it when I see it.”

Terrorism is essentially psychological warfare, intended to sway the minds of the enemy. As such, it’s much cheaper, much less destructive, and potentially much more effective than conventional warfare. As Napoleon said, in war the moral is to the physical as three is to one.

I should also mention Sun Tzu in this light. He’s become very fashionable in recent years. This isn’t the time to discuss his views on warfare, but there’s no question he would have been a huge advocate of terror as a method.

I did a couple of pieces on terror, in previous Conversations With Casey and Totally Incorrect, Vol.1.

To continue reading: Doug Casey on the Future of War

He Said That? 2/12/16

From Mustaf Amin, a political leader of Levant Front, which has received US weapons and is one of the largest rebel alliances fighting Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah for control of Aleppo, Syria.

The rebels now have a responsiblity to change the way they fight. If we don’t get support from our allies in a major way, it will need to transform into guerrilla warfare.

The Wall Street Journal, “Rebels Switch to Guerrilla Tactics,” 2/12/16.

The article states that the rebels “have already started turning to guerrilla tactics such as assassinations, ambushes and hit-and-run attacks.”

If the Levant Front was a US enemy instead of an ally (and it may be, one can never tell in the Middle East) the US government and The Wall Street Journal would label their new tactics terrorism, not guerrilla warfare.