Is guerrilla warfare effective today?

masti123

I've been thinking, let's say the Irish War for Independence happened 100 years later, today.

Would guerrilla warfare be an effective strategy? Since we have drones, heat detectors, etc now. Would it be possible for us to put up a fight against the British these days?

Jawgap

Technology or the lack of it, isn't the key determinant of success for a guerilla campaign or insurgency - support of the people and population is.

To paraphrase Mao, the more who support and insurgency (and the greater their commitment) that larger and deeper the sea the prospective insurgent will have to swim in.

riffmongous

Well the Chechens managed to defeat the mighty Russian army 20 years ago usingessentially guerilla warfare, and people will talk about the poor state of the Russians at the time but look at the size of Chechnya on a map, if you can find it. It took the defections of Chechen units and mass destruction of civilian centers to control the guerillas in the 2nd war (the insurgency is still ongoing)

Israel also has struggled to defeat Hezbollah and Hamas in recent conflicts, Turkey can't defeat the PKK, the Russians were allowed to use a much higher level of brutality on the civilian population than would be allowed by 'western' countries

gallag

No, things have leaped forward, drones like the ARGUS with 1.8 gigapixle camera's cappible of tracking thousands of targets have simply put an end to it. And this is 2013 tech.

https://youtu.be/QGxNyaXfJsA

Del2005

gallag wrote: »

No, things have leaped forward, drones like the ARGUS with 1.8 gigapixle camera's cappible of tracking thousands of targets have simply put an end to it. And this is 2013 tech.

https://youtu.be/QGxNyaXfJsA

If that is the case then how come Iraq and Afghanistan are still at war? With all their technology the Western armies have been driven out and the installed government forces are taking a lot of casualties. Most of the reasons may be political but they are succeeding in the guerrilla war.

Jawgap

Over the years you can point to any number of wars / conflicts where the 'conventional' force enjoyed massive technological superiority over the insurgent but still 'lost.' The prime example would probably be Viet Nam - US forces largely reigned supreme on the battlefield, but the administration they supported eventually collapsed.

In fact, the most successful examples of counter-insurgency are decidedly low-tech.

gallag

Come on, it would be so vastly different today! Men back then could have hid in bushes successfully whilenow they would be lit up! Look at the cam footage of drones wiping insurgents out in Iraq/Afghanistan etc.

Another way to answer this is by asking if the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would be having an easier time of it if the opposition could only use 100 year old tech? Of course it's different now.

KingBrian2

No guerrilla warfare is still pretty effective, what is missing for many groups is a just cause. Without that no army can win the peace. They keep on fighting like a bunch of apes. The sensible revolutionaries make the tough decisions and become politicians and leaders leaving behind the generals and colonels only interested in continuing the war.

BoJack Horseman

Del2005 wrote: »

If that is the case then how come Iraq and Afghanistan are still at war?

Neither the Iraqi or Afghan armies have the mentioned tech, so its pretty moot.

Jawgap

gallag wrote: »

Come on, it would be so vastly different today! Men back then could have hid in bushes successfully whilenow they would be lit up! Look at the cam footage of drones wiping insurgents out in Iraq/Afghanistan etc.

Another way to answer this is by asking if the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would be having an easier time of it if the opposition could only use 100 year old tech? Of course it's different now.

......and look at the absolute carnage a 105mm or 155mm shell repurposed as an IED causes. For all the technological prowess of the various western powers who've gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, they still haven't been able to effectively introduce a technological solution the IED threat.

gallag

Jawgap wrote: »

......and look at the absolute carnage a 105mm or 155mm shell repurposed as an IED causes. For all the technological prowess of the various western powers who've gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, they still haven't been able to effectively introduce a technological solution the IED threat.

Today ied's have been largely mitigated, 90% of fatalities from ied's are now civilians due to The MRAP (mine- resistant, ambush-protected) truck, bomb detectors, and jamming devices that can block the signals used to remotely detonate certain IEDs, the point is a drone with hellfire missiles is going to cause more carnage all while the pilot is sitting in an air conditioned container sipping mountain due, if the UK/US had the drone tech from now at the start of Afghanistan losses would have been much less. Drones really are a game changer, imagine the British had access to the ARGUS 1.8gp camera drone during the troubles! One loitering over west belfast could have tracked every provo 24/7 or picked up heat signals from ambushes in rural areas about armagh etc.

Jawgap

gallag wrote: »

Today ied's have been largely mitigated, 90% of fatalities from ied's are now civilians due to The MRAP (mine- resistant, ambush-protected) truck, bomb detectors, and jamming devices that can block the signals used to remotely detonate certain IEDs, the point is a drone with hellfire missiles is going to cause more carnage all while the pilot is sitting in an air conditioned container sipping mountain due, if the UK/US had the drone tech from now at the start of Afghanistan losses would have been much less. Drones really are a game changer, imagine the British had access to the ARGUS 1.8gp camera drone during the troubles! One loitering over west belfast could have tracked every provo 24/7 or picked up heat signals from ambushes in rural areas about armagh etc.

All true, but it wouldn't have meant they'd have defeated the insurgencies in any of those countries. You're assuming that the insurgents in question would have fought exactly the same, and applied the methods they did, in the face of the superior technology. They wouldn't. They may well have adhered to the same principles but applied them differently - it would be hubristic to think the insurgency in Afghanistan could have been defeated through technology, given they have a history of bridling against foreign rule that goes back to Alexander the Great.

Again, borrowing from Viet Nam, at the Paris peace talks a senior American officer said to a senior NVA "you never beat us on the battlefield" to which the NVA officer replied "That is true, but it is also irrelevant."

Or one of the better discussions I've read on the use of technology in COIN was penned by one of Petraeus' COIN advisors, David Kilcullen - as he sums it up, the forces going into Afghanistan in particular had the watches, but the insurgents had the time.

Del2005

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Neither the Iraqi or Afghan armies have the mentioned tech, so its pretty moot.

Because the armies with the technology where driven from the battle field!

BoJack Horseman

Del2005 wrote: »

Because the armies with the technology where driven from the battle field!

Well, no one was driven from the battlefield.

No objective analysis of the us army's performance indicates defeat.

Plus, that camera is only IOC on a reaper drone, I don't think any are deployed.

Jawgap

Del2005 wrote: »

Because the armies with the technology where driven from the battle field!

In insurgency / counter-insurgency the population is the battlefield.

Many would argue that by not patrolling and basing themselves as much as possible among the population, coalition forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq ceded the 'battlefield' to the insurgents for extended periods.

Del2005

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, no one was driven from the battlefield.

No objective analysis of the us army's performance indicates defeat.

Plus, that camera is only IOC on a reaper drone, I don't think any are deployed.

The army might not have been defeated but the guerrillas are still fighting. The guerrillas succeeded in removing a superior army from the field which means that technology can win battles but not wars. Which is what guerrilla warfare is all about, defeating a superior force not winning battles.

KingBrian2

Del2005 wrote: »

The army might not have been defeated but the guerrillas are still fighting. The guerrillas succeeded in removing a superior army from the field which means that technology can win battles but not wars. Which is what guerrilla warfare is all about, defeating a superior force not winning battles.

War experienced some what of a crazy phase in the last century. Keeping the peace is an even more delicate and subtler goal to achieve. The failure of diplomacy is the cause of many wars. In the last century virtually every war I can think of was caused by lack of communication or aggressive posturing.

Okay so some wars were grand conquests by larger empire against vassal states or potential competitors but the era of Empires dominating the globe was beginning to end in the 19th century. Slave Rebellions or National Liberation Struggles used strategies that did way better at outwitting enemy armies. We live in an age that war is just too destructive guerrilla or otherwise.