The Guerrilla

Lightdemon said:

I'm not quite sure it is an actual disguise. They are not a formal military unit, I wouldn't think they would have some kind of uniform. The guerrilla fighter is actually a civilian who is picking up arms to defend thier land from invasion.

I've never heard that before.

But if someone of importance in US history said, we didn't want a "Brown America," I would think they didn't understood how profitable Texas and New Mexico commerce was at the time.

Click to expand...

Totally removing any discipline though turns the Guerrilla or Militia into criminals.

One If By Land, and Two If By Sea! Who do you serve? {The civilian?} Who do you trust? {Hopefully, it is that which doesn’t get our people slaughtered.}

The so-called “Guerrilla fighter” using civilian clothes to blow up and shoot people for his own impunity is certainly dishonorable; regardless of whether one thinks the occupiers are justified or unjustified in their occupation, the natural and historical reaction of an occupation army to “civilian“ fighters is to exterminate the civilians.

The Roman Empire would have sent its Legions to exterminate and disperse to the four corners of the earth any resistance; just ask the Jews. I have drank a beer with a “liberal” Democratic Party member (and rabid Bush hater) that doesn’t want us to shoot civilians, but he justified civilian disguised suicide bombers killing the Israeli military. Those are insane rules of warfare that smack of bias. Especially if they say they support our troops, and would have supported the war if there had been WMD and our troops had been wearing little blue hats. The shrunken head at the table said, “we should attack countries that have WMD.“ I know of one guy in a war zone that had a “civilian” shoot at him, he just opened up on the mob for his own protection; which one is guilty? I say the so-called “civilian” who shot first gets the Darwin Award, and the “liberal“ Democratic Party Member in a perfect world should have been the one standing next to him as a human shield. The fact is that a shield is as much a weapon of war as a sword, for it can be brought down upon the neck. Just because the guy has a shield is no reason to fall back behind the walls only to get some plague infected meat lobbed over the walls.

******

You said: “But if someone of importance in US history said, we didn't want a ‘Brown America,’ I would think they didn't understood how profitable Texas and New Mexico commerce was at the time.”

I think you would be very wrong in thinking that. What you never heard before prevents you from figuring that they could just as easily have removed the “brown,” if there were too much in the new acquisitions.

Saying that the war was too costly, or that the guerrillas drove the U.S. out is convenient and too simplistic, ignoring the anti-war movement and other aspects, especially considering that guerillas never drove us out of what we originally intended to get (buy).

Guerillas only work if they have critical mass and an undetermined enemy. I am sure France now thinks we should have stayed out of that little occupation. {sarcasm} Maybe the “Reconquista” and the government’s attempt to put “equality” in the pie slice, will do what the “successful” guerrillas couldn’t do in well over a century in Texas and New Mexico. You might say that the guerrillas in Mexico really didn’t want those former lands, or that those of Spanish descent in those lands wanted to go with America and therefore guerrillas are not aggressive. The simple fact is, the “guerrillas” familiar with the lay of the land once known as “Red Skins,” or the terrorist “Ku Klux Klan,” didn’t stand a chance against a determined occupation.

It simply was not a matter of time before we pulled out of Mexico; totally devoid of any resistance at all, it was inevitable that we would pull out. A view of that war must take into account the motives of both sides in the U.S., the abolitionist’s side alone explains why they didn‘t want Mexico.

All educated men of the time would have been familiar with Edward Gibbon’s advice to populate the America’s with non-barbarian races. Such things can’t be simply dismissed as having an effect because our modern sensibilities disagree with those of the time.

The Mexican-American war was between 1846 to 1848, and “On July 26, 1847, the Americo-Liberian settlers declared the independence of the Republic of Liberia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

Just because they wanted Texas free from threat etc., and were opposed to slavery, doesn’t mean all the abolitionists in the North were not white supremacists or they were not looking at the numbers. Like 60% black in Georgia, or the slaughtered whites in a Caribbean slave revolt that was on Lincoln’s mind around the time of John Brown. {If Georgia had that percentage today, Sonny Purdue wouldn’t be Governor. http://www.gov.state.ga.us/ }

An abolitionist Senator from New York just before the Civil War lamented the stench of the Negro {it was their diet}, and hated going to Washington, D.C. and eating dinner there. It was not an unusual sentiment at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Marcellus_Clay

If you look you will see the irony of Cassius Clay.

A lot of things just aren’t common knowledge, and a person has to read ancient history wondering at all times what has been left out. Any connections or links that don’t sit well are ignored; like how many local papers have never printed a copy of the 1996 or 1998 fatwas?

I doubt very much that you could find a copy of the draft of an emancipation proclamation for the State of Delaware anywhere on the Internet, where shipping them to South America and “back” to Africa was a possible option, but if you read enough, you will find it {it goes to motive}:

Amazon.com: Lincoln: Speeches and Writings: Volume 2: 1859-1865 (Library of America): Books: Abraham Lincoln

We don’t want to upset the little kiddies.

Do I need to get into why it took so long to convince Lincoln to “free” the slaves? Read volume one of that set of books…



Most of this is not on topic, sorry about that. It sounded like a rant…

Yea, it did come off as sort of a rant. :doh

DivineComedy said:

The Roman Empire would have sent its Legions to exterminate and disperse to the four corners of the earth any resistance; just ask the Jews. I have drank a beer with a “liberal” Democratic Party member (and rabid Bush hater) that doesn’t want us to shoot civilians, but he justified civilian disguised suicide bombers killing the Israeli military. Those are insane rules of warfare that smack of bias. Especially if they say they support our troops, and would have supported the war if there had been WMD and our troops had been wearing little blue hats. The shrunken head at the table said, “we should attack countries that have WMD.“ I know of one guy in a war zone that had a “civilian” shoot at him, he just opened up on the mob for his own protection; which one is guilty? I say the so-called “civilian” who shot first gets the Darwin Award, and the “liberal“ Democratic Party Member in a perfect world should have been the one standing next to him as a human shield. The fact is that a shield is as much a weapon of war as a sword, for it can be brought down upon the neck. Just because the guy has a shield is no reason to fall back behind the walls only to get some plague infected meat lobbed over the walls.

Click to expand...

Sure, guilt is hard to place in that situation. But does that kill the guerrilla? No, instead it creates more. That tactic isn't going to work, something else must be done.

******

You said: “But if someone of importance in US history said, we didn't want a ‘Brown America,’ I would think they didn't understood how profitable Texas and New Mexico commerce was at the time.”

Saying that the war was too costly, or that the guerrillas drove the U.S. out is convenient and too simplistic, ignoring the anti-war movement and other aspects, especially considering that guerillas never drove us out of what we originally intended to get (buy).

Click to expand...

The guerrillas never intended on getting back New Mexico or Texas, that was the Mexican gov't's plan. The guerrillas only wanted thier land back, they could have cared less for New Mexico and Texas.

Also, Texas and New Mexico didn't want to go back to being part of Mexico. They wanted to become independant, which Texas declared on the eve of the US-Mexican War. This is because New Mexico and Texas enjoyed the booming economy from the US. Mexican gov't had created too many taxes in its attempt to centralize government and the nortenos resented that. "The Far North" was named so because it was very distant from Mexico City, both geographically and ideologically.

It wasn't a matter of getting that territory back, but a matter of who wants to go back to Mexico. But regardless, the guerrillas did get back what they wanted. New Mexico got what they wanted. Texas got what they wanted. Mexico was the one that came out empty handed.

It simply was not a matter of time before we pulled out of Mexico; totally devoid of any resistance at all, it was inevitable that we would pull out. A view of that war must take into account the motives of both sides in the U.S., the abolitionist’s side alone explains why they didn‘t want Mexico.

Click to expand...

Either way, they couldn't have held Mexico if they wanted to. Guerrillas weren't the only ones attacking the troops, real civilians began to attack them as well because they were being abused so badly by the American troops. One can hardly tell the difference between a guerrilla and a real civilian.

One does not have to be part of Al-Q in order to oppose the war in Iraq. Having your neighborhood bombed, TV stations bombed, sacred and holy lands bombed, and everything else going up in smoke, does in fact make people angry and they do not have to be Al-Q. Civilians who are sick and tired of being abused will do whatever they can to protect themselves and drive off the invaders. Do we blame them then? No. Can we blame our own troops? No. Who can we blame? Probably the one who is in charge of military tactics and strategies.

I doubt very much that you could find a copy of the draft of an emancipation proclamation for the State of Delaware anywhere on the Internet, where shipping them to South America and “back” to Africa was a possible option, but if you read enough, you will find it {it goes to motive}:

Click to expand...

Actually, I've read that before. :2wave:

Lightdemon said:

Civilians who are sick and tired of being abused will do whatever they can to protect themselves and drive off the invaders. Do we blame them then? No. Can we blame our own troops? No. Who can we blame? Probably the one who is in charge of military tactics and strategies.

Click to expand...

You are right it does create more of a problem when the soldier opens up on the civilians, I think that is exactly what the terrorists want. “Hey everybody, look, big bad government is shooting a civilian.” It doesn’t matter whether it is our government or any other that the undisciplined individual doesn’t like. The tyrant/terrorist is counting on mob stupidity, and only the right speech getting heard.

As to a solution, hopefully the Iraqi people can find a solution after they are seen in the history books as driving us out of Iraq.

Hopefully, the Iraqis aren’t too ignorant or stupid, certainly the Iraqis can see those hypocrites who were lamenting the deaths of the Iraqi children in the 1996 fatwa during containment, and will prevent Baghdad from looking like this in the future:



Lots of rubble for potential guerillas to get crushed in, now that is the military strategy we haven’t done in a very long time; I think they call that WAR! After I wrote my representatives on September 11, 2001, calling for a formal declaration of war, one of my Senators said that cowardly abuse of Congressional power…{I just want to cuss}…my Senator said that thing that is less than a declaration of war was “sufficient.” Same party of manifest destiny…

At this time I would like blame those like Woodrow Wilson…I would like to complain about the concept of a Treaty of Versailles “performing the function of a ‘cork in the bottle’” containing Germany, and yesterday’s struggle as it relates to today’s struggle, because the results of history should speak for themselves. Maybe, when we leave, we should leave. {period} YouTube - Varney-Clark Interview

*****

You said: “The guerrillas never intended on getting back New Mexico or Texas, that was the Mexican gov't's plan. The guerrillas only wanted thier land back, they could have cared less for New Mexico and Texas.”

You are probably right, “the guerrillas did get back what they wanted.”

Most guerillas today cite “the loss of their favorite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression.”

They will fight for their land, their soap operas, but not their speech.

You are right, we couldn’t have held Mexico even if we wanted to; I don’t remember anybody ever saying the only good Mexican is a dead Mexican.

As to a solution to a problem, we need satellites.

We should make some good soap operas for Venezuela, like radio free Europe, and give them free text messaging. To help the guerillas. :shock: But, come to think of it, that is probably what both sides want us to do. Sneaky…

What are they watching anyway…Battlestar Galactica? {You will pry that one out of my cold dead hands}

Getting back to the north in Mexico, and lack of guerilla will, I love that really big smile on the guy that couldn‘t catch the man standing next to him:

Imageershing-villa.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :mrgreen:

Lightdemon said:

How do you kill a guerrilla fighter?

First I think we need to define a guerrilla. It is not somebody who just doesn't follow conventional military tactics. There are some important points in describing the identity of a guerrilla fighter.

For one thing, guerrilla's have a strong sense of nationalism. They fight not because they are enlisted or drafted. They are volunteers. They signed up for the job to protect thier land.

Another factor is that they are defenders, not agressors. They fight to defend the land that they live on.

Case in point, the very first guerrillas that were recognized originated in Latin America. Guerrilla is a spanish/latin word after all, it is pronounced Ger-ree-ya (or something like that ).

During the US-Mexican War, the US had occupied the City of Mexico, but the US failed to hold it because of the guerrilla fighters. They seem to never die, and each one that is killed, a new one emerges. Guerrillas constantly interrupted supply lines and ambushed the US troops when it was most vulnerable. The effect was making the war more costly for the US.

Guerrilla's are fighters from the land, they know the terrain, they know how to ambush, they know how to take advantage of the situation, they do not play by the "rules of combat", and they symbolize some sort of paternal figure for thier surrounding society. This last characteristic creates more guerrilla fighters because it presents a notion of honor in becoming a guerrilla.


So the question is, How can we kill a guerrilla?

Click to expand...

From what i can tell guerillas are next to impossible to defeat if the local population supports them if not their ****ed . For example during the irish war of independance the old I.R.A managed to defeat the brittish army despite only having a fraction of the men and weapons the brittish army had because they knew the landscape and local people where willing to support them [unsurpriseingly]. This meant they could disapear easily. We,re having the same problem with the taliban insurgency, to much local support.

The only recent conflict i can think of were guerrillas lost a war is the Malayan Emergency. This was more due to a lack of local support then anything else. My grandfather spent a significant amount of time in Malaya "fighting" the MPLA and only actually saw one Guerrilla for about half a second before he disaperd into the jungle. [Luckily for him the Guerrila's gun wasnt working]The only reason the MPLA lost was that local people turned against them. Thats the only way to defeat Guerilla's im aware of.

Lightdemon said:

How do you kill a guerrilla fighter?

They signed up for the job to protect thier land.

+

Another factor is that they are defenders, not agressors. They fight to defend the land that they live on.

+

Guerrilla's are fighters from the land, they know the terrain

Click to expand...

Poison that land they are living off of, for a generation or two.

Red_Dave said:

From what i can tell guerillas are next to impossible to defeat if the local population supports them if not their ****ed . For example during the irish war of independance the old I.R.A managed to defeat the brittish army despite only having a fraction of the men and weapons the brittish army had because they knew the landscape and local people where willing to support them [unsurpriseingly]. This meant they could disapear easily. We,re having the same problem with the taliban insurgency, to much local support.

The only recent conflict i can think of were guerrillas lost a war is the Malayan Emergency. This was more due to a lack of local support then anything else. My grandfather spent a significant amount of time in Malaya "fighting" the MPLA and only actually saw one Guerrilla for about half a second before he disaperd into the jungle. [Luckily for him the Guerrila's gun wasnt working]The only reason the MPLA lost was that local people turned against them. Thats the only way to defeat Guerilla's im aware of.

Click to expand...

Malaya's a good example. The Commonwealth military did a very good job of fighting the insurgency but yes, lack of popular support did the insurgents in. I'm not sure of the military tactics used by the military in Malaya but I think - only think - that anti-guerilla tactics were used rather than the regular tactics. I used to work with a bloke who fought in the Australian Army in Malaya but he's retired now and I've lost touch with him but from what he told me about it, there was a fair bit of close-quarters jungle fighting there.

Way to not address the problem of occupation or guerrilla warfare at all.

bhkad said:

Better question, how do you distinguish between a guerrilla and a Jihadist?

I think we tell the guerrilla this. "We have no fight with you unless you try to defend the jihadists or fight with them. Go home, Mr. Guerrilla we are not trying to hurt you."

Then the Guerrilla goes home and you can start a thread asking how to kill the Jihadists.

Click to expand...

:rofl that is your plan? "Everyone who isn't a Jihadist lay down..... Now, shoot everyone standing!"

Problem solved :roll:

Red_Dave said:

For example during the irish war of independance the old I.R.A managed to defeat the brittish army despite only having a fraction of the men and weapons the brittish army had because they knew the landscape and local people where willing to support them [unsurpriseingly].

Click to expand...

You get half way through Lawrence James’ “The Rise and Fall of the British Empire” and there is the IRA taking advantage of a world of imperialism falling apart. I would have thought the British Empire would have died soon after my great…grandpa signing the Declaration of Independence. Were you guys hiding the newspapers from the Irish and your Indians?

You said: “local people turned against them. Thats the only way to defeat Guerilla's im aware of.”

http://www.cherokee.org/

There appears to be some confusion here about what a true "guerrilla" fighter is and the blending of Jihadists and insurgencies. Here are some distinct definitions...

A. Guerrilla warfare consists of military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces.

B. An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through subversion or armed conflict. This definition is similar to guerrilla warfare because guerrilla warfare can be a tactic used in an insurgency.

C. Terrorism is the use or threat of force against civilian targets to frighten the population. It is a guerrilla tactic. The line that seperates what IS terrorism and what IS NOT is often foggy. But some things are quite clear: The murder of the mayor of a town is terrorism, but the ambushing of a military commander is not.

All three definitions can very well exist within each other, but the Geneva Convention is explicit about the legal status of guerrillas. To be classified as guerrillas and not outlaws, guerrillas must meet ALL of the following criteria:

(1) They must be commanded by a person who is responsible for his subordinates.

(2) They must wear a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.

(3) They must bear arms openly. This criteria is violated the most, because a farmer by day may elect to be a part of the militant effort by night. If he is caught at night with weapons and he can be proven to be a simple farmer by day, he is considered an outlaw.

(4) They must conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

If a guerrilla is captured and follows all of the above, then he is to be considered a POW. If he is in violation, then he is a criminal and may be turned over to civil authorities for prosecution. Jihadists do not follow the Geneva Convention and therefore not afforded its protection. In fact, we would be well within our rights to simply execute them instead of jailing them.

As for how to deal with them, while they have the advantage in some areas, there greatest hope is to tire the military force against them. In our case, our disaster will always come from our impatient civilan population long before the military is ready to throw in the hat. Despite the frustrating tactics in their favor, there are some solid guidelines and tactics against them.

GySgt said:

There appears to be some confusion here about what a true "guerrilla" fighter is and the blending of Jihadists and insurgencies. Here are some distinct definitions...

A. Guerrilla warfare consists of military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces.

B. An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through subversion or armed conflict. This definition is similar to guerrilla warfare because guerrilla warfare can be a tactic used in an insurgency.

C. Terrorism is the use or threat of force against civilian targets to frighten the population. It is a guerrilla tactic. The line that seperates what IS terrorism and what IS NOT is often foggy. But some things are quite clear: The murder of the mayor of a town is terrorism, but the ambushing of a military commander is not.

All three definitions can very well exist within each other, but the Geneva Convention is explicit about the legal status of guerrillas. To be classified as guerrillas and not outlaws, guerrillas must meet ALL of the following criteria:

(1) They must be commanded by a person who is responsible for his subordinates.

(2) They must wear a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.

(3) They must bear arms openly. This criteria is violated the most, because a farmer by day may elect to be a part of the militant effort by night. If he is caught at night with weapons and he can be proven to be a simple farmer by day, he is considered an outlaw.

(4) They must conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

If a guerrilla is captured and follows all of the above, then he is to be considered a POW. If he is in violation, then he is a criminal and may be turned over to civil authorities for prosecution. Jihadists do not follow the Geneva Convention and therefore not afforded its protection. In fact, we would be well within our rights to simply execute them instead of jailing them.

As for how to deal with them, while they have the advantage in some areas, there greatest hope is to tire the military force against them. In our case, our disaster will always come from our impatient civilan population long before the military is ready to throw in the hat. Despite the frustrating tactics in their favor, there are some solid guidelines and tactics against them.

Click to expand...

Sorry for going a bit of topic. I just wanted to say that’s it annoyingly hard to critique the current foreign policy of the USA when people like GySgt actually have a good and defined definition of terrorism. What happened to the days were ivory tower wanna-be intellectuals like me could just shrug of all arguments based on terrorism, because the word were just an universal American expression for everyone they didn’t like?

GySgt said:

C. Terrorism is the use or threat of force against civilian targets to frighten the population. It is a guerrilla tactic. The line that seperates what IS terrorism and what IS NOT is often foggy. But some things are quite clear: The murder of the mayor of a town is terrorism, but the ambushing of a military commander is not.

Click to expand...

The use of deliberate civilian disguise by the belligerents, to murder the military commander of an occupation, has the effect of putting the non-combatant civilians in jeopardy of being frightened or killed in error. Don’t be too foggy, if you care about your civilians or mine. Wear that flag, and carry it with pride.

What about attaching a long pole to a horse, tar and feathering the mayor, attaching the mayor to the pole, and whipping the horse out of town? :mrgreen:

As requested....

The tactics used by guerrillas or used against them can be similar. A conventional army has the advantage in some ways as does the guerrilla force. It is a misconception that a guerrilla can't be defeated. Guerrillas are not a movement and as long as it remains that way they can be engaged. People have this notion because they see an act of terrorism as senseless and vicious for its own sake. However, they do have goals set with every attack, bomb, or kidnapping. And if they have goals, then they can be defeated. A continual guerrilla presence after the larger force has engaged properly doesn't mean victory to the guerrilla forces.

I'll throw in some example from Iraq to make these more clear....

Guerrilla Tactics:

a) Intel gathering is easy when the guerrillas have sympathizers. Spies can literally be out in the open and completely free to roam because they blend directly into the local population.

b) Assassinations are useful to the guerrillas in ways most don't realize. They may kill effective government officials and leave the corrupt ones alone to discourage the good leaders. (When they kill or kidnap government officials in Iraq, they aren't just going after anybody in a suit. They have targetted those harmful to their oppressive cause. The insurgency may be Sunni and Al-Sadr may be Shi'ite, but the insurgency know that Al-Sadr is not constructive to this new Iraqi government and therefore was never a target.)

c) Raids are directed at key installations or facilities, such as radar sites, missile sites, or airfields.

d) Terrorism is a tactic used when weakened or when they want to terrorize government sympathizers. It also is a way for the guerrillas to show the people that their government can't protect them. (Does anybody really need an example in Iraq to see this one?)

e) Hit and Run tactics ensure that they won't be decisively engaged by the larger organized force. (This is the tactic used when ambushing convoys in Iraq.)

f) **Attacks to provoke the government to respond over zealously is a tactic used by terrorists and guerrillas. It is an attempt to get the people to support them. This would be the protestor's greatest point if he were smart enough to put the stupid sign down and study what is actually going on. This tactic is especially dangerous and harmful to the government if not prepared. In the spring of 1942, Czech guerrillas assassinated Reinhard Heydrich. In retaliation, the Germans murdered the citizens of the Czech city of Lidice and estroyed the city. Prior to the assassination, the Czechs were docile under the Germans with no guerrilla activity. After Ludice, the Czech resistance burned passionately. The assassination tactic was designed to provoke the Germans into an attrocity that would enrage the Czechs. (Bin Ladden used this tactic against us on 9/11. It worked, because it did pull us into the Middle East as never before. However, his intentions to create a great Muslim war against the West has, so far, gone unrealized. We need to keep insisting that "we are not at war with Islam!!!" Saddam Hussein's reputation, which made him hated amongst Sunni and Shi'ite alike, gives a bit of breathing room. An attack into Sadui Arabia would have given him his dreamed of war.)

g) Attacking weak points is always a goal of any military, but to guerrillas it is the only way to cause damage and flee for future attacks.

Tactics against guerrillas:

a) Psychological operations or "psyops" are designed to obtain a favorable response from the guerrillas or population. Community relations such as building projects, repair work, or meeting local social needs can go a long way to sway local support away from guerrillas. This is ussually a task for outside military agencies, but the military does its part when necessary. (This is a tactic largely denied to our military in Iraq. A radio station meant to counter Al-Jazeera by reporting on the good things happening in Iraq has been criticized and labeled as propaganda by our critics around the world.)

b) Isolating guerrillas from outside support is obviously harmful to their operations. Guerrillas do not have the ability to sustain themselves through supply lines leading to Naval Ships or the ability to have shipments dropped from aircrafts. They rely on other governments or on local aid. (Again...this tactic is largely denied to our military as reports of Iran's and Syria's involvement go criticized and dismissed by our critics world wide.)

c) Destroying the guerrillas units and infrastructures goes a long way to making an already loosely organized resistance to a worst state of condition. (Fallujah was an example of what can happen if guerrilla forces are left to fester. The infrastructure in Fallujah had to be destroyed.)

d) Establishing a relationship between the civil authorities and the military creates more pressure upon the guerrilla force.

e) Feigning weakness is a solid tactic againt guerrilla forces. If we know where they are likely to attack, then make them believe they will be successful with an attempt. (U.S. Marine convoys are sometimes used to draw the insurgency in with air support waiting in the distance and additional Marines lying in the beds of the trucks.)

f) Patroll bases present the guerrilla forces with having to decide to choose between operating somewhere else or risk direct engagement with the military force. (Most deaths in Iraq are not coming from patrol engagement. Those patrols that do wind up in a fire fight are happening upon insurgent forces or catching up with them after one of their prior attacks.)

g) Offensive Operations are adjustable as each was has its own unique characteristics.


We have to remember that the military knows what it is doing when it is allowed to do its job. With the conflict going on in Iraq, we see the comfortable blending of guerrilla and terrorist. This enemy is not interested in holding ground, which is characteristic of a pure guerrilla. He will only defend his location when it is to his advantage. The tactics of defense have no place in the realm of guerrilla warfare. He is not likely to waste his abilities defending a piece of ground which means nothing. If he has a route of escape, he will take it. Because of this, a military's objective in a guerrilla war is to kill guerrillas, not to hold terrain.

Good post. A couple of things I want to add and ask:

GySgt said:

Tactics against guerrillas:

a) Psychological operations or "psyops" are designed to obtain a favorable response from the guerrillas or population. Community relations such as building projects, repair work, or meeting local social needs can go a long way to sway local support away from guerrillas. This is ussually a task for outside military agencies, but the military does its part when necessary. (This is a tactic largely denied to our military in Iraq. A radio station meant to counter Al-Jazeera by reporting on the good things happening in Iraq has been criticized and labeled as propaganda by our critics around the world.)

Click to expand...

I would think this would be very difficult since it kind of contradict point C. Which is to destroy the infrastructure of our enemies. Since the civilian and guerrilla share the same infrastructure, how can we rebuild it when it is our goal to destroy it?

b) Isolating guerrillas from outside support is obviously harmful to their operations. Guerrillas do not have the ability to sustain themselves through supply lines leading to Naval Ships or the ability to have shipments dropped from aircrafts. They rely on other governments or on local aid. (Again...this tactic is largely denied to our military as reports of Iran's and Syria's involvement go criticized and dismissed by our critics world wide.)

Click to expand...

I'm not that well informed about US diplomacy, but as I understand it, the Bush administration refused to participate in international talks. And as of late, Cheney declared to that the US will begin talks with Iran, but the day before of that announcement Cheney said:

"We'll keep the sea lanes open. We'll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. We'll disrupt attacks on our own forces. We'll continue bringing relief to those who suffer, and delivering justice to the enemies of freedom. And we'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region."

Click to expand...

This of course sends a very strong message of intimidation, something along the lines of "we ain't backin down!" Which is something you shouldn't really say when negotiating because that doesn't lead to anything. We might as well not have diplomatic relations with Iran.

Of course, Iran and Syria have also refused to cooperate as well. The point I'm trying to make is that it is not just because of critism of negotiating with other countries that made diplomacy undesirable. The whole process of diplomacy was never intended nor pursued at any considerable level of effort.

c) Destroying the guerrillas units and infrastructures goes a long way to making an already loosely organized resistance to a worst state of condition. (Fallujah was an example of what can happen if guerrilla forces are left to fester. The infrastructure in Fallujah had to be destroyed.)

Click to expand...

To add to what I've already said, destroying the infrastructure of the guerrilla is also destroying the city where people live, where they do business, and it is the center of life. To destroy such infrastructure, we are crippling the economic and social structure of that city. Does this not add more support to the "defenders" (guerrillas) of the city?

Lightdemon said:

I would think this would be very difficult since it kind of contradict point C. Which is to destroy the infrastructure of our enemies. Since the civilian and guerrilla share the same infrastructure, how can we rebuild it when it is our goal to destroy it?

Click to expand...

A military force need only to deny the infrastructure used by the enemy. Infrastructure can be re-built and used by the controlling forces. With radio as an example; the military force can re-build a radio station once used by guerrillas and use it while seeking new guerrilla stations to destroy.

The current situation against this new enemy makes this a very delicate and tremendously tough situation, because "Guerrillas" hide within the population. In a case where an entire town is being used to headquarter "guerrillas" the town must be cleared. A guerrilla force that is able to rest within a base of operations also has opportunity to plan deadlier strikes and able to invest in an intelligence system against the larger force.

Lightdemon said:

To add to what I've already said, destroying the infrastructure of the guerrilla is also destroying the city where people live, where they do business, and it is the center of life. To destroy such infrastructure, we are crippling the economic and social structure of that city. Does this not add more support to the "defenders" (guerrillas) of the city?

Click to expand...

We are covering new ground. Keep in mind that a "true" guerrilla is not supposed to maintain a presence behind human shields in order to be considered a guerrilla according to the Geneva Convention. The situation with this enemy is that they exist within that blurry line between terrorist and guerrilla. Guerrillas in South America will live in the jungle in camps in which power is supplied to them through generators. During the last World War, guerrillas lived in the sewers and in the mountains. Islams guerrillas today headquarter and fight from within their own neighborhoods and they operate from behind what they hope will deter us from fighting. But it simply cannot.

Military units in the field have already become accustom to the fact that the definitions and the tactics employed are changing. We are witnessing the evolution of the word "guerrilla." At least in this region.

GySgt said:

The current situation against this new enemy makes this a very delicate and tremendously tough situation, because "Guerrillas" hide within the population. In a case where an entire town is being used to headquarter "guerrillas" the town must be cleared. A guerrilla force that is able to rest within a base of operations also has opportunity to plan deadlier strikes and able to invest in an intelligence system against the larger force.

Click to expand...

Is it not our goal to "win the hearts and minds" of the people in Iraq? That is one way to stop more people from becoming guerrillas right? Displacing an already aggrevated population will only push them further away. Removing the civilians from thier home, from thier land, is exactly what creates guerrillas.

We are covering new ground. Keep in mind that a "true" guerrilla is not supposed to maintain a presence behind human shields in order to be considered a guerrilla according to the Geneva Convention.
The situation with this enemy is that they exist within that blurry line between terrorist and guerrilla. Guerrillas in South America will live in the jungle in camps in which power is supplied to them through generators. During the last World War, guerrillas lived in the sewers and in the mountains. Islams guerrillas today headquarter and fight from within their own neighborhoods and they operate from behind what they hope will deter us from fighting. But it simply cannot.

Click to expand...

That just depends on the escalation of the war I guess. When WWII escalated to the point of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I guess our military saw it fit to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. In my most honest opinion, killing civilians to get your enemy is never justified. Sacrificing the livelihood and the well being of the civilians in Iraq are not ours to sacrifice.

But even so, destroying the very foundations of urban society and creating ghettos out of once magnificent cites, takes a large toll on the population. Is it a surprise that more guerrillas are born?

Military units in the field have already become accustom to the fact that the definitions and the tactics employed are changing. We are witnessing the evolution of the word "guerrilla." At least in this region.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Which is why I think understanding the guerilla will help us understand better the situation in Iraq.

Lightdemon said:

Is it not our goal to "win the hearts and minds" of the people in Iraq?

Click to expand...

We wish to win the hearts and minds of the people, and convince them that shoving a salami bomb up a civilian disguised butt or vagina is an enemy of the Golden Rule, and is EVIL!

You’re either with us (civilian status, that doesn‘t go boom), or you’re against us (civilian status, that doesn‘t go boom).

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm {Do you hear the sound of Laughter?}

“[60.8] G-d does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes—Twin Towers, cruise ships (especially if they are wheel-chair bound), planes, school busses, market places, churches, etc.—that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely G-d loves the doers of justice.”

*****

Prior to 2001 many of us poor hicks used to look up and see Embry-Riddle planes flying over our houses, and we would wish that we could afford flight lessons for our kids.

Our biggest worry was how much traffic there would be on Oktoberfest, or Black College Reunion.

In May 2001 we were discussing a National Energy Policy and the challenge to “repair and expand our energy infrastructure.” (National Energy Policy, Overview • Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future, p, IX) http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf

On August 30, 2001 at precisely 10:35 PM I uploaded a messaged in a discussion about “real” Islam with a Taliban defending Muslim. We were both so civil in our calm discussion in a topic called “New Colored Forum,” which was started after “liberals“ attacked both of us for peacefully discussing religion in a topic about the Taliban.

*****

According to the world, Red State Republican MAD bombers are the biggest threat to world peace. So don’t you have things BACKWARDS?

We are MAD! Do you hear me, We are MAD! MAD I tell you! MAD!

*****

To “win our hearts and minds” the world and the Islami… should pay taxes to repair and expand our energy infrastructure (electrical grid, refineries, etc.), and help us with those alternative energy plans. So that we can kiss the Middle Eastern Oil good-by. Until then they should lower gas prices.

To “win our hearts and minds” the world and the Islami… millionaires should pay for our kids to go to school at Embry-Riddle.

To “win our hearts and minds” the world and the Islami… should pay taxes to help repair the damage from the hurricanes, because too much of our tax money is tied up in MAD bombers.

To “win our hearts and minds” the world and the Islami… millionaires should pay our way to GERMAN schools… Oktoberfest Germany, Oktoberfest Hats, Oktoberfest Clothing, Oktoberfest Music

FREE BEER! FREE BEER! FREE BEER!

Lightdemon said:

Is it not our goal to "win the hearts and minds" of the people in Iraq? That is one way to stop more people from becoming guerrillas right? Displacing an already aggrevated population will only push them further away. Removing the civilians from thier home, from thier land, is exactly what creates guerrillas.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that "exactly" creates guerrillas. But like I said..you are confusing the difference between a "true" guerrilla and a terrorist. Defined tactics against guerrillas are not an absolute against

Lightdemon said:

That just depends on the escalation of the war I guess. When WWII escalated to the point of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I guess our military saw it fit to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. In my most honest opinion, killing civilians to get your enemy is never justified. Sacrificing the livelihood and the well being of the civilians in Iraq are not ours to sacrifice.

But even so, destroying the very foundations of urban society and creating ghettos out of once magnificent cites, takes a large toll on the population. Is it a surprise that more guerrillas are born?

Click to expand...

Who cares about justified? What world do you live in? When ideology and fantasy is stripped away, survival and tactics is left. Taking out Hiroshima and Nagasaki could easily be argued as wrong. But the fact is that very often, the ends do justify the means. Tactics and victory have everything to do with "will" and not so much for what is "right and wrong."

There are enough examples in history to suggest almost an exact science for dealing with guerrillas. There is also enough examples in history on how guerrillas have attempted to get the larger force to kill civilians in the hopes of killing them in order to gain support from the local population. This is where we have to be careful about what we do against today's enemy who caters more to terrorism vice "true" guerrilla warfare. There is not a lot in history that shows us how to deal with a "guerrilla" who lives and fights from within a crowd of his own people.

Lightdemon said:

Precisely. Which is why I think understanding the guerilla will help us understand better the situation in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Understanding the guerrilla is a basic training topic for Marines and soldiers. But we are not up against the Geneva Convention defined guerrilla. Our enemies are not going to play by western rules.

Generally speaking, I think we're in agreement. But there seems to be some contradictions in fighting the guerrillas and winning over the civilian population. This is what is peculiar about the type of guerrillas in Iraq, as you have pointed out in your last post.

GySgt said:

There are a lot of things that "exactly" creates guerrillas. But like I said..you are confusing the difference between a "true" guerrilla and a terrorist. Defined tactics against guerrillas are not an absolute against

Click to expand...

I think you may have cut out a peice of your post here...? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Who cares about justified? What world do you live in? When ideology and fantasy is stripped away, survival and tactics is left. Taking out Hiroshima and Nagasaki could easily be argued as wrong. But the fact is that very often, the ends do justify the means. Tactics and victory have everything to do with "will" and not so much for what is "right and wrong."

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I guess this is the difference you and I have. Justification is always needed, as it should be. Actions that are primarily based "survival" are the rhetoric of oppressive governments. That is not a government I wish to have. We just have to agree to disagree on this point.

This is where we have to be careful about what we do against today's enemy who caters more to terrorism vice "true" guerrilla warfare. There is not a lot in history that shows us how to deal with a "guerrilla" who lives and fights from within a crowd of his own people.

Click to expand...

You're right, this is a very different type of guerrilla. But as I see it, it is merely an evolved form of a guerrilla. The guerrilla who once hid behind trees in the jungle, now hides within their very own people. The effect is the same, which is to blend in with thier environment. This is the advantage guerrilas always had because they know the terrain, they are the locals, they are in thier own territory.

Precisely. Understanding the guerrilla is a basic training topic for Marines and soldiers. But we are not up against the Geneva Convention defined guerrilla. Our enemies are not going to play by western rules.

Click to expand...

And there's no incentive for them to abide by western rules. Why go by them if they do not serve thier purpose?

In Vietnam, napalms were used to clear jungles and destroy makeshift bunkers, that is one way to get to the enemy. But what if those trees were humans? Can we still do the same? Can we just bomb everyone? I would hope not because that is dastardly un-humanitarian.

By hiding behind civilians, they force the US military to be percieved as the "bad guys." And in doing so, it also creates more guerrillas because of this perspective. But I dont blame them for having this perspective. The tactics that are currently used in Iraq are contradictory to our goals. We want the Iraqis to see us as an outside force who is trying to stabalize the region, but our tactics are not doing that, and it seems it's doing the opposite of that.

Something else needs to be done.

Lightdemon said:

I think you may have cut out a peice of your post here...? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I do that sometimes. My mind starts racing and I tend to skip around.

"Defined tactics against guerrillas are not an absolute against"... an insurgency that uses terrorist tactics. As you stated, here lies contradiction.

Lightdemon said:

In Vietnam, napalms were used to clear jungles and destroy makeshift bunkers, that is one way to get to the enemy. But what if those trees were humans? Can we still do the same? Can we just bomb everyone? I would hope not because that is dastardly un-humanitarian.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Every war is unique and thusly demands unique tactics. A tactic against the Viet-Cong might not work against people in the Middle East. Tactics against the Germans might not work against the Japanese. And of course, the terrain and environment have a lot to do with this.

This is why training is continual and never ending. During our involvement in Somalia in the early part of the last decade, we recognized that conventional warfare is largely a thing of the past. Given our status in the world and our developed military culture (referring to how we fight), it is almost assured that our enemies haven't a chance against us out in the open. We have had to evolve in order to cater to this new enemy and the world's new reaction against us.

The Gulf War was a gamers wet dream. Our enemy was out in the open desert away from civilian populations. It was a throw back to yesterdays fighting. And the entire world watched us crumble Hussein's forces. The so called "Rebublican Guard" was a joke compared to the U.S. Marines (we fondly call this war the "drive-by in the desert.") This is the war the idiot, inexperienced Rumsfeld Coven was using to create their new military for the new century. "Shock and Awe" was supposed to mimic the air campaign from the earlier war and the enemy was supposed to surrender to the minimum troop strength on the ground. Oops. As the Marine Corps and the Army already knew and as the White House was to discover, the future of warfare is going to involve urban territory and local populations as roadblocks. Our time in Somalia taught us everything we needed to know about the future.

The Geneva Convention guerrilla is gone.

Lightdemon said:

By hiding behind civilians, they force the US military to be percieved as the "bad guys." And in doing so, it also creates more guerrillas because of this perspective. But I dont blame them for having this perspective. The tactics that are currently used in Iraq are contradictory to our goals. We want the Iraqis to see us as an outside force who is trying to stabalize the region, but our tactics are not doing that, and it seems it's doing the opposite of that.

Something else needs to be done.

Click to expand...

The contents of this article reflect on a program that we started last summer....
Sunnis revolt against al-Qaida - Yahoo! News

Also, part of Marine training is to walk through a crowd while engaging the enemy. It is a common occurrence to hear about Marines in fire fights that have used one hand to fire his weapon and the other to throw civilians down. This is very very dangerous to the Marine, because the enemy doesn't care about where his lead is going and the Marine is exposed. But this is the situation we are going to be in well beyond Iraq.

GySgt said:

The contents of this article reflect on a program that we started last summer....
Sunnis revolt against al-Qaida - Yahoo! News

Click to expand...

I'm somewhat confused on the tactics that were used. It seems to me that the American military didn't initiate anything. Al-Q made a mistake by "using loudspeakers to claim that Amariyah was under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida front group." So the Sunnis in that region got mad and picked up arms and called in the Americans.

But what was initiated by us? Seems that this was because Al-Q's propaganda backfired, not because this was a military tactic....

Can you describe this program? I'm guessing I may have missed some parts of that article that reflected some things of that program. Perhaps it has something to do with working with the civilian population? Empowering them to fight against Al-Q?

Also, part of Marine training is to walk through a crowd while engaging the enemy. It is a common occurrence to hear about Marines in fire fights that have used one hand to fire his weapon and the other to throw civilians down. This is very very dangerous to the Marine, because the enemy doesn't care about where his lead is going and the Marine is exposed. But this is the situation we are going to be in well beyond Iraq.

Click to expand...

That is most certainly a distressing situation.

Lightdemon said:

I'm somewhat confused on the tactics that were used. It seems to me that the American military didn't initiate anything. Al-Q made a mistake by "using loudspeakers to claim that Amariyah was under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida front group." So the Sunnis in that region got mad and picked up arms and called in the Americans.

But what was initiated by us? Seems that this was because Al-Q's propaganda backfired, not because this was a military tactic....

Can you describe this program? I'm guessing I may have missed some parts of that article that reflected some things of that program. Perhaps it has something to do with working with the civilian population? Empowering them to fight against Al-Q?

Click to expand...

Early last year, we started a program in the Al-Anbar Province. The ultimate goal was to soften the paths used by outside Islamists and sway the people towards our efforts. It was dangerous, because it meant placing smaller units within villages and towns to develop relationships with the citizens. Because this meant combat at the same time, this was a Marine operation with Army logistic support for social functions (airlifts, construction, etc.). The obvious logic here was that if they got to know you personally, they wouldn't seek to kill you as easily (much like the kidnapped tapping into his/her kidnapper's humanity). The units acted as ambassadors and listened to the complaints of the locals. If they compained about a dump, then local Mairne units radio'd to higher headquarters and Army and SeaBee bulldozers rolled in. If they complained about a school, then local Marine units radio'd higher headquarters and then Army and Sea Bee construction teams flew in. But, the catch was that they would do the work and we would merely follow their instruction (something we should have been doing since day 1). Eventually, they would learn to cooperate with "their" Marines. The goal was to make them realize that though we are occupiers, we aren't the enemy. It had to be a smaller force, because larger forces tend to scare the population and we lose the "one on one" aspect. By empowering the local Marine units, we gave the people their voice. And the goal was to make them aware that they were heard. We also sought to instill in them that we need their help.

This was the plan. However, it took a long time to develop, because we were still dealing with the hot bed of the insurgency and the terrorists hiding grounds. And things like the Haditha incident hurt us. In the midst of combat between Marines, insurgents, and terrorists...the "peoples projects" would get damaged. Always, the units tried to react quickly after the dust settled and rebuild with the people's help.

This hasn't proven to be overwhlemingly successful yet. We have been seeing signs, but I think we are in the beginning of seeing a years worth of effort pay off to some degree. Earlier this year, it was reported that members of insurgent elements were involved in some building near Al-Qaim. And the latest media blurb actually only represents what has been a trend since mid May. Now, Al-Qaim is hardly Fallujah or Baghdad, but those places are still too hot for this unproven program and those places are too close to that damned sectorial violence.

Today, we could safely state that insurgent forces have become more concerned with outside Islamic meddling and concerned about how they look to the vast majority of Iraqis who are looking to American forces for protection. Hammering away at Shi'ite militias also goes a long way to show that we are not trying to take sides.


From what I know about this program, it was Regimental and Division level Marine/Army commanders that introduced it up the chain (A truly remarkable feat, because we usually don't collaberate on such things for silly ego, rivalry, and competitive reasons.) But if this proves to be a success.....watch the politicians fall all over themselves to take the credit.

GySgt said:

Early last year, we started a program in the Al-Anbar Province. The ultimate goal was to soften the paths used by outside Islamists and sway the people towards our efforts. It was dangerous, because it meant placing smaller units within villages and towns to develop relationships with the citizens. Because this meant combat at the same time, this was a Marine operation with Army logistic support for social functions (airlifts, construction, etc.). The obvious logic here was that if they got to know you personally, they wouldn't seek to kill you as easily (much like the kidnapped tapping into his/her kidnapper's humanity). The units acted as ambassadors and listened to the complaints of the locals. If they compained about a dump, then local Mairne units radio'd to higher headquarters and Army and SeaBee bulldozers rolled in. If they complained about a school, then local Marine units radio'd higher headquarters and then Army and Sea Bee construction teams flew in. But, the catch was that they would do the work and we would merely follow their instruction (something we should have been doing since day 1). Eventually, they would learn to cooperate with "their" Marines. The goal was to make them realize that though we are occupiers, we aren't the enemy. It had to be a smaller force, because larger forces tend to scare the population and we lose the "one on one" aspect. By empowering the local Marine units, we gave the people their voice. And the goal was to make them aware that they were heard. We also sought to instill in them that we need their help.

This was the plan. However, it took a long time to develop, because we were still dealing with the hot bed of the insurgency and the terrorists hiding grounds. And things like the Haditha incident hurt us. In the midst of combat between Marines, insurgents, and terrorists...the "peoples projects" would get damaged. Always, the units tried to react quickly after the dust settled and rebuild with the people's help.

This hasn't proven to be overwhlemingly successful yet. We have been seeing signs, but I think we are in the beginning of seeing a years worth of effort pay off to some degree. Earlier this year, it was reported that members of insurgent elements were involved in some building near Al-Qaim. And the latest media blurb actually only represents what has been a trend since mid May. Now, Al-Qaim is hardly Fallujah or Baghdad, but those places are still too hot for this unproven program and those places are too close to that damned sectorial violence.

Today, we could safely state that insurgent forces have become more concerned with outside Islamic meddling and concerned about how they look to the vast majority of Iraqis who are looking to American forces for protection. Hammering away at Shi'ite militias also goes a long way to show that we are not trying to take sides.


From what I know about this program, it was Regimental and Division level Marine/Army commanders that introduced it up the chain (A truly remarkable feat, because we usually don't collaberate on such things for silly ego, rivalry, and competitive reasons.) But if this proves to be a success.....watch the politicians fall all over themselves to take the credit.

Click to expand...

Wow, sounds almost too good to be true.

Your last post reminded me of the Guerrilla fighters who lived in Chihuahua during the 1850s-60s. They were called Serranos (people who come from the sierras).

Long before Chihuahua was established, it had been a prime target for the Apache tribe. The Apache themselves were guerrillas, and the Mexican federal troops could not out manuever them. It was not until the peasants picked up arms to defend themselves from the Apache did the situation get better.

Peasants participated in this local militia because the rewards was having thier own land. Which we have been talking about this whole thread, is the motivation for a guerrilla to fight. The peasants adopted the Apache fighting style, by ambushing and cut-run tactics.

And though this militia did eventually purge the region of the Apaches, when Mexico finally gained political stability, it could not centralize thier government. The Serranos was independant by themselves. They had thier own militia, they had thier own municipal government, they were a totally different state (just not by name).

This presented a tremendous difficulty for the Mexican government and it could not establish firm control over its states. Eventually the Serranos would initiate a movement that would break the Mexican government, and that is what becomes the Mexican Revolution of 1910(circa).

*******
Although I think the plan is a good idea....
I'm talking about the Serranos because I think this may happen with the Iraqis. What started this whole thing anyway? Wasn't the problem about centralized government? Sunni vs. Shia? If we empower either group this way, it would only deepen the divide. And eventually we will end up where we started.

Lightdemon said:

Your last post reminded me of the Guerrilla fighters who lived in Chihuahua during the 1850s-60s. They were called Serranos (people who come from the sierras).

Long before Chihuahua was established, it had been a prime target for the Apache tribe. The Apache themselves were guerrillas, and the Mexican federal troops could not out manuever them. It was not until the peasants picked up arms to defend themselves from the Apache did the situation get better.

Peasants participated in this local militia because the rewards was having thier own land. Which we have been talking about this whole thread, is the motivation for a guerrilla to fight. The peasants adopted the Apache fighting style, by ambushing and cut-run tactics.

And though this militia did eventually purge the region of the Apaches, when Mexico finally gained political stability, it could not centralize thier government. The Serranos was independant by themselves. They had thier own militia, they had thier own municipal government, they were a totally different state (just not by name).

This presented a tremendous difficulty for the Mexican government and it could not establish firm control over its states. Eventually the Serranos would initiate a movement that would break the Mexican government, and that is what becomes the Mexican Revolution of 1910(circa).

*******
Although I think the plan is a good idea....
I'm talking about the Serranos because I think this may happen with the Iraqis. What started this whole thing anyway? Wasn't the problem about centralized government? Sunni vs. Shia? If we empower either group this way, it would only deepen the divide. And eventually we will end up where we started.

Click to expand...

That's a great bit of history. Good job. I do the same thing. Usually, history presents us with enough happenings to be able to predict some things. Or at least understand them better.

Our goal is to support the government like we do other governments throughout the world. This means that Sunni and Shi'ite have to start working together instead of clinging to past grievances of which none of them were even alive to create. Ultimately, this is entirely up to Iraqis.