cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

- Politics (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - Students of History, SU and others (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3636)

Students of History, SU and others

Is anybody aware of any conflicts where the combatants were interspersed partially throughout a population and some of the combatants used terror against civilian populations where the subduing power won?

The closest I have come, is in the UK Northern Ireland conflict.

However, I'm not certain that Britain ever succeeded in the Middle East or India.

Any world historians aware of any situations where the terroists ultimately did not win, i.e., driving the "occupiers" from their lands?

How about the American Civil War?

Not really.

In that one, one side had an army which could be defeated and thus occupation set in. I imagine there were some terroistic actions taken after the War, but ...

I don't think that qualifies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

How about the American Civil War?

The very reason the North won the American Civil War is that there was no resovle on the South's part to fight a guerilla war. Had the southerners taken cudgel in hand and fought house to house and in the bayous and the awful, deadly southern weather with the murderous commitment that, say, the Russians defended their homeland against Napoleon or the Nazis, the outcome would have been different, and the death toll would have been many times higher. Today the South would be an independent, third-world country. As I understand, the prevailing view among historians today, based on the absense of guerilla war by the South, is that the Southern cause was not committed at the grass-roots level, and from the South's perspective the Civil War was primarily of interest to the aristocracy, who are not the greatest candidates for leading a guerilla war, partly because of their limited numbers.

I'm not aware of a committed guerilla war ever failing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The very reason the North won the American Civil War is that there was no resovle on the South's part to fight a guerilla war. Had the southerners taken cudgel in hand fought house to house and in the bayous and the awful, deadly southern southern weather with the murderous commitment that, say, the Russians defended their homeland against Napoleon or the Nazis, the outcome would have been different, and the death toll would have been many times higher. Today the South would be an independent, third-world country. As I understand, the prevailing view among historians today, based on the absense of guerilla war by the South, is that the Southern cause was not committed at the grass-roots level, and from the South's perspective the Civil War was primarily of interest to the aristocracy, who are not the greatest candidates for leading a guerilla war, partly because of their limited numbers.

I'm not aware of a committed guerilla war ever failing.

Maybe we should nail this down for any future President who ever desires to fight guerillas. It can't be done, unless you're wiling to annihilate an entire population, or displace and enslave that population.

The US should rarely if ever anticipate becoming an occupying force. Hit and run should be the only policy ever envisaged, given our limited political resolve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Thanks goes to partyl to Robert E. Lee, who rejected guerilla war and chose to surrender and encouraged his countrymen to do the same. You're right, the war was a war waged by the aristocracy, primarily over slavery (valid arguments about economics and states rights notwithstanding), and the vast majority of confederates had no vested interest in the institution. They fought for their homeland, but their commitment was only so strong - they weren't willing to commit national suicide over it. I think the vast majority of southerners saw the long-term futility of their cause as evidenced by Sherman's march to the sea, and just wanted to stop fighting their kin (in many cases literally) to the north.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Bingo. Occupying forces can defeat guerilla insurgencies if they're committed and ruthless enough. The U.S. obviously is not. That's not to say Iraq is a lost cause, but the insurgency will ultimately only be put down by the Iraqis themselves, cause we're just not willing to do what it takes to win (we're concerned with hearts and minds - not necessarily a bad thing).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venkman

(valid arguments about economics and states rights notwithstanding)

These aren't the valid economic arguments that blacks were economically better off in slavery are they? Ugh...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

These aren't the valid economic arguments that blacks were economically better off in slavery are they? Ugh...

No, I think he's referring to how some Southern apologists of the present day highlight economic issues such as tariff wars with Britain that hurt U.S. exports of cotton and tobacco. The war was about slavery.