"The British never clearly understood what they were against–a revolutionary struggle involving widespread support in the population. Hence they continually underestimated the staying power of the rebels and overestimated the strength of the loyalists. And in the end, independence came to mean more to the Americans than reconquest did to the English."
- The American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood, p. 78.
Showing posts with label insurgents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurgents. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2011
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Anglo-Mexican War: Ten Years in
By 2050 Mexico had restored much of the area of Aztec and Mayan control, from the Rio Grande to the Panama Canal. In 2050 Mexico saw its chance to expand its control. The U.S. was now bogged down in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Korea. In the name of the freedom of Latinos in the Southwest U.S., Mexico invaded California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
After pushing the overburdened U.S. Army out and quelling the Tea Party Patriots, Mexican forces met resistance from Los Insurgentes, a loose confederation of Apache, Hopi, Navaho, and descendants of immigrants from Mexico.
Losses for the Mexican army are now over 15,000. Five thousand of those were killed when Los Insurgentes lured the Mexican Army into the Grand Canyon and then blew up the Glen Canyon Dam.
The fiercest fighting has been in East Los Angeles where many of the gangs have ambushed Mexican patrols. The gangs have used the sewer system to great effect to move around the city. The Mexican army has tried booby traps, tear gas, and other means to hinder the Los Insurgents; but Los Insurgents often seem to be able to turn these back on the Mexican Army.
Mexico City itself had been filled with demonstrations in support of the troops and demonstrations protesting the war. One of the biggest scandals was the discovery that the government had hired drug lords as contractors to quell the violence in the American cities. The actions of the contractors have further alienated the residents and all but eliminated any cooperation with the Mexican Army.
Although President Volpe was re-elected in a landslide because he played on the patriotism of the Mexican people, the cost of the war in its tenth year is draining his support rapidly. People complain that taxes are too high and that the government has done little to alleviate the three-year-long recession.
This just in! President Volpe has appointed Pedro Santos as Generalissimo of La Reconquista. President Volpe said that Generalissimo Santos has a plan to bring the war to a close in two years. An editorial in La Jornada pointed out that Generalissimo Santos' predecessor said the same thing two years ago.
After pushing the overburdened U.S. Army out and quelling the Tea Party Patriots, Mexican forces met resistance from Los Insurgentes, a loose confederation of Apache, Hopi, Navaho, and descendants of immigrants from Mexico.
Losses for the Mexican army are now over 15,000. Five thousand of those were killed when Los Insurgentes lured the Mexican Army into the Grand Canyon and then blew up the Glen Canyon Dam.
The fiercest fighting has been in East Los Angeles where many of the gangs have ambushed Mexican patrols. The gangs have used the sewer system to great effect to move around the city. The Mexican army has tried booby traps, tear gas, and other means to hinder the Los Insurgents; but Los Insurgents often seem to be able to turn these back on the Mexican Army.
Mexico City itself had been filled with demonstrations in support of the troops and demonstrations protesting the war. One of the biggest scandals was the discovery that the government had hired drug lords as contractors to quell the violence in the American cities. The actions of the contractors have further alienated the residents and all but eliminated any cooperation with the Mexican Army.
Although President Volpe was re-elected in a landslide because he played on the patriotism of the Mexican people, the cost of the war in its tenth year is draining his support rapidly. People complain that taxes are too high and that the government has done little to alleviate the three-year-long recession.
This just in! President Volpe has appointed Pedro Santos as Generalissimo of La Reconquista. President Volpe said that Generalissimo Santos has a plan to bring the war to a close in two years. An editorial in La Jornada pointed out that Generalissimo Santos' predecessor said the same thing two years ago.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Afganistan - When will they ever learn?
Corruption in a client government!
Hubris in an imperial government!
Wikileaks of a bleak situation!
Reading "The limits of power" by Andrew J. Bacevich
History of the French Resistance
American colonial history
English only in the Lino Lakes government
Cutting foreign languages in schools
It all really ties together, sadly.
Let's start with American colonial history. The colonists did not like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They didn't follow the rules of engagement and fought from concealment. George the Third had many derogatory things to say about those rebels. Many Afghanis (and Iraqis) don't like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They don't follow the rules of engagement and fight from concealment. George the Bush had many derogatory things to say about those insurgents.
Many French did not like the German occupation. They fought back, often from concealment. Instead of roadside bombs, they threw train switches the wrong way. Some Germans took bribes to look the other way. Some Vichy police were very hard on the resistance. Other Vichy police called resistance leaders to warn them of a planned raid. See "Occupation déja vu". Oh, yes! The Germans in France had an advantage that the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have; a large number of them spoke the local language.
We are running up huge deficits to fight these wars and don't have money for education in our own country. In fact, we are cutting back on the teaching of foreign languages. If our soldiers and diplomats are not linguistically proficient, can we expect them to communicate with people who speak other languages with little or no proficiency in English?
Many states and localities want to put into law English-only for government business, the latest being Lino Lakes, Minnesota (Star Tribune 2010-07-26). What if other countries did the same, including at immigration and customs control at the airport? If the U.S. is English only, shouldn't Japan be Japanese only? If so, they should remove the Romaji from all the train station signs and leave only the Kanji and Hiragana. Ah, so! You didn't get off at せんだい? So sorry, you missed Sendai.
Which gets us back to imperial hubris. If we think we know what's best for other countries, how can we even know what's best for them if we don't speak their language, much less understand many of their customs? Insurgency will surely follow. Knowing the culture, the language, and the landscape better than any foreigners, the insurgents have an immense tactical and strategic advantage.
When will they ever learn?
Hubris in an imperial government!
Wikileaks of a bleak situation!
Reading "The limits of power" by Andrew J. Bacevich
History of the French Resistance
American colonial history
English only in the Lino Lakes government
Cutting foreign languages in schools
It all really ties together, sadly.
Let's start with American colonial history. The colonists did not like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They didn't follow the rules of engagement and fought from concealment. George the Third had many derogatory things to say about those rebels. Many Afghanis (and Iraqis) don't like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They don't follow the rules of engagement and fight from concealment. George the Bush had many derogatory things to say about those insurgents.
Many French did not like the German occupation. They fought back, often from concealment. Instead of roadside bombs, they threw train switches the wrong way. Some Germans took bribes to look the other way. Some Vichy police were very hard on the resistance. Other Vichy police called resistance leaders to warn them of a planned raid. See "Occupation déja vu". Oh, yes! The Germans in France had an advantage that the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have; a large number of them spoke the local language.
We are running up huge deficits to fight these wars and don't have money for education in our own country. In fact, we are cutting back on the teaching of foreign languages. If our soldiers and diplomats are not linguistically proficient, can we expect them to communicate with people who speak other languages with little or no proficiency in English?
Many states and localities want to put into law English-only for government business, the latest being Lino Lakes, Minnesota (Star Tribune 2010-07-26). What if other countries did the same, including at immigration and customs control at the airport? If the U.S. is English only, shouldn't Japan be Japanese only? If so, they should remove the Romaji from all the train station signs and leave only the Kanji and Hiragana. Ah, so! You didn't get off at せんだい? So sorry, you missed Sendai.
Which gets us back to imperial hubris. If we think we know what's best for other countries, how can we even know what's best for them if we don't speak their language, much less understand many of their customs? Insurgency will surely follow. Knowing the culture, the language, and the landscape better than any foreigners, the insurgents have an immense tactical and strategic advantage.
When will they ever learn?
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Why should foreign soldiers be needed against native insurgents?
I've long wondered why the U.S. or any other country needs to send its armed forces to another country to fight home-grown rebels. If the rebels can fight effectively, why can't the local government soldiers fight back effectively?
First, how strongly do the fighters on either side believe in their cause? Too often, the rebels are "true believers" who think their cause will bring about a "better" world, and the government soldiers are reluctant supporters of a weak or corrupt government. The latter may be in the military because it is one of the few jobs available, and even some erratic pay is better than no pay at all.
Second, a weak or corrupt government cannot organize itself to effectively solve any problem. It either spends too much time trying to get people involved co-operatively or spends too much time lining pockets.
A foreign army can't do much about either situation unless it completely takes over the country and rules with an iron fist. Armies from democratic countries find this very unpalatable.
For the most part, foreign armies are just that, foreigners. They don't speak the language and don't understand either the customs or the politics. This was especially true in Iraq, where the foreign army created more enemies than it eradicated.
The situation may be changing in Afghanistan. According to David Brooks, "The Winnable War", New York Times, 2009-03-27, "every Western agency is finally focused on" creating a civil society. We shall see.
First, how strongly do the fighters on either side believe in their cause? Too often, the rebels are "true believers" who think their cause will bring about a "better" world, and the government soldiers are reluctant supporters of a weak or corrupt government. The latter may be in the military because it is one of the few jobs available, and even some erratic pay is better than no pay at all.
Second, a weak or corrupt government cannot organize itself to effectively solve any problem. It either spends too much time trying to get people involved co-operatively or spends too much time lining pockets.
A foreign army can't do much about either situation unless it completely takes over the country and rules with an iron fist. Armies from democratic countries find this very unpalatable.
For the most part, foreign armies are just that, foreigners. They don't speak the language and don't understand either the customs or the politics. This was especially true in Iraq, where the foreign army created more enemies than it eradicated.
The situation may be changing in Afghanistan. According to David Brooks, "The Winnable War", New York Times, 2009-03-27, "every Western agency is finally focused on" creating a civil society. We shall see.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
How is it that irregular fighters so often beat the regular soldiers?
I posted the following to President-elect Barack Obama's transition website: http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision
The 10,000 Greek soldiers that battled their way through hostile territory after the Persians killed their generals, 4th Century, B.C.
American irregulars against the British Army, 18th Century
French Resistance against Hitler's war machine, 1940's
Viet Cong guerrillas against a super power, the United States, 1960-1970s
Iraqi "insurgents" against the superior firepower of the United States
Afghani fighters against the British, the Russians, and the Americans.
Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling on their home turf. The Greeks were trying to return to their home turf.
Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling against a foreign power with an accompanying "puppet" government. The Colonial Americans did have an advantage in that many of the politicians were against the occupiers. Even with that advantage, it took six years to get the occupying army to surrender.
Could it be that many of the population have no incentive to support the foreign-supported government? If there is not direct foreign-support, could such support be perceived? If such support is not perceived, could it be that the government is ineffective in providing basic services or is seen as corrupt? If the last, does an ineffective or corrupt government have the resources to buy the loyalty of its own ruthless army.
It is only when all these questions are properly addressed, can anyone, superpower or not, hope to bring peace and stability to countries where neither exists.
The 10,000 Greek soldiers that battled their way through hostile territory after the Persians killed their generals, 4th Century, B.C.
American irregulars against the British Army, 18th Century
French Resistance against Hitler's war machine, 1940's
Viet Cong guerrillas against a super power, the United States, 1960-1970s
Iraqi "insurgents" against the superior firepower of the United States
Afghani fighters against the British, the Russians, and the Americans.
Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling on their home turf. The Greeks were trying to return to their home turf.
Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling against a foreign power with an accompanying "puppet" government. The Colonial Americans did have an advantage in that many of the politicians were against the occupiers. Even with that advantage, it took six years to get the occupying army to surrender.
Could it be that many of the population have no incentive to support the foreign-supported government? If there is not direct foreign-support, could such support be perceived? If such support is not perceived, could it be that the government is ineffective in providing basic services or is seen as corrupt? If the last, does an ineffective or corrupt government have the resources to buy the loyalty of its own ruthless army.
It is only when all these questions are properly addressed, can anyone, superpower or not, hope to bring peace and stability to countries where neither exists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)