Can guerrilla warfare work only as a resistance (defensive) strategy?

tdv123

Or can it work as a offensive strategy?

If someones country was being invaded guerrilla warfare would work well, we've seen this in the past.

But can it work or has it worked for invading a country or does a more conventional type of warfare need to be used?

tim3000

I wouldn't say it would. The rationale behind an invasion is to quickly establish dominance over the enemy. If you were to invade with a guerrilla war strategy then this would slow you down allowing the enemy sufficient time to re-organise re-group and formulate a plan of attack.

Its always best to quickly decapitate the enemy by going for his capital/areas of heavy industry/population centres/soldier concentrations, instead if local small scale skirmishes as you see in guerrilla warfare. You should destroy a nations ability to make war instead of a locality.

Cork boy 55

Nicarguan 1979–1990
In Nicarguan the offensive guerrilla contras war combined with economic deprivation broke the will of the people to support the Sandinistas in the 1990 election and delivered their defeat.
That's one example although the contras did not come anyway close to gaining a lot of ground or winning militarily. The contras fought largely from safe havens in neighboring countries

The Rhodesian bush war(1964-1980)
Would be a second example, guerrillas based in numerous safe havens in other countries again combined with sanctions broke the will of Rhodesians to keep fighting again the guerrillas did not win on battlefield.


In both cases guerrillas mounted offensive wars from safe havens and where backed hugely by
major international players.
In both cases in the target country popular support was limited and military success of the guerrilla campaign was also limited.
They "won" by degrading political, social and economic will of target host population to continue the war.

Jawgap

tdv123 wrote: »

Or can it work as a offensive strategy?

If someones country was being invaded guerrilla warfare would work well, we've seen this in the past.

But can it work or has it worked for invading a country or does a more conventional type of warfare need to be used?

Ask Mao and Giap

Mao identified three phases, divided into seven steps that an insurgency must pass for it to be successful. In the final phase, (the decision or destruction of the enemy phase) he asserted that to be successful a significant part of the active guerrilla force must transform into an orthodox army capable of engaging the enemy in conventional battle.

In this final phase, in Mao's view, negotiations should only be entered into if more time or a pause is needed to build up or transform one's forces.

On a more general note, to succeed at any level a guerilla campaign must enjoy the widespread support of the population - the Brits and the Yanks having learned that previously have had to re-learn it in Afghanistan and Iraq, that "the people are the prize."

Deafeating the enemy militarily day in day out is pointless if in doing so the population are being alienated, a fact best illustrated during negotiations in Hanoi at the end of the Vietnam war when a US Colonel said to his North Vietnamese counterpart....

"You know, you never beat us on the battlefield" ........to which the NVA Colonel replied....

"That may be so, but it is also irrelevant"

c-90

Guerrilla warfare on its own couldn't sustain an offensive so it would need to be quickly followed up with a conventional type ground dominating or holding type operation.

However prior to the conventional phase guerrilla elements could significantly increase the chance of a successful offensive by destroying high value targets behind enemy lines and softening up resistance. We've seen examples of this from ww2 to today and I'd go as far to say that it has become conventional.

So no, guerrilla warfare is not limited to defensive roles but can be used in offensive roles also, but not on its own. Imo

Cork boy 55

c-90 wrote: »

Guerrilla warfare on its own couldn't sustain an offensive so it would need to be quickly followed up with a conventional type ground dominating or holding type operation.

However prior to the conventional phase guerrilla elements could significantly increase the chance of a successful offensive by destroying high value targets behind enemy lines and softening up resistance. We've seen examples of this from ww2 to today and I'd go as far to say that it has become conventional.

So no, guerrilla warfare is not limited to defensive roles but can be used in offensive roles also, but not on its own. Imo

It depends what the objective is and what type of war it is.

If its total war and the objective is victory and complete defeat of the target countries army then you right

But if the objectives are more limited
Regime change
partition
provoke a coup d'etat
provoke a civil war
provoke negotiations
Change government policy
manipulation of elections.
economic disruption
Gain power sharing
disrupt a nuclear weapons program
etc

Then the effective use of offensive guerrilla war can and has worked

Del2005

c-90 wrote: »

So no, guerrilla warfare is not limited to defensive roles but can be used in offensive roles also, but not on its own. Imo

Was the Vietnam war not a guerilla war? The North sent the NVA to replace the Vietcong, but eventually drove the Americans out and only then invaded with conventional forces. The war was effectively lost when the US pulled out.

c-90

Del2005 wrote: »

Was the Vietnam war not a guerilla war? The North sent the NVA to replace the Vietcong, but eventually drove the Americans out and only then invaded with conventional forces. The war was effectively lost when the US pulled out.

Nope, they used both conventional tactics and guerrilla warfare. Both sides, however the NVA/VC seemed to employ it a lot better.

Jawgap

In reference to the original question, it might be worth noting that guerilla warfare, insurgency or counter-insurgency are not strategies, nor are they strategy - they are modes of operation.

Also, 'total war' has never and can never exist. Clausewitz spoke about 'absolute war" and how war can approach absoluteness, but it can never be absolute!

The operational approach must connect to its political purpose - the idea is that force must have political utility, so the war aims will dictate if a particular mode of operation will succeed.

But even if a belligerent succeeds in achieving their political and war aims that doesn't necessarily equate to 'victory' - victory (and defeat) are subjective.

AllthingsCP

tim3000 wrote: »

I wouldn't say it would. The rationale behind an invasion is to quickly establish dominance over the enemy. If you were to invade with a guerrilla war strategy then this would slow you down allowing the enemy sufficient time to re-organise re-group and formulate a plan of attack.

Its always best to quickly decapitate the enemy by going for his capital/areas of heavy industry/population centres/soldier concentrations, instead if local small scale skirmishes as you see in guerrilla warfare. You should destroy a nations ability to make war instead of a locality.

I would disagree if under the right command and proper well trained force a smaller force could invade and destabilize and even capture and control a whole country, Cuba in the 50's 60's Afgan 70's 80's. A tactic like this would not work in a country like United States, UK, or any country that have the ability of drones of sat's but the likes of smaller nations like Ireland and along them line why not