Students of History, SU and others

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by Venkman

How bout the Phillipine-American war? The Fillipino's definitely used guerilla war against the Americans and lost. Obviously they lost their "commitment", but I think it had something to do with the US Army ruthlessly kicking their asses. The US wouldn't and couldn't ever prosecute a war in that manner in this day and age.

That war doesn't seem all that modern, turn of the century wasn't it?

[Cali Coug]

The Second Boer War would be a classic example. The British faced guerilla warfare from the Boers who were dressed in regular clothing sniping at British soldiers. The British became frustrated with guerilla warfare in the First Boer War and eventually gave up (though their peace treaty gave a victory on paper to the British). In the Second, the British crushed the Boer resistance.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Mastershake

That war doesn't seem all that modern, turn of the century wasn't it?

I never said it was modern. And yes, I believe the war was around 1900-1905.

[Mormon Red Death]

How about he Basque in Northern spain.... or hell even the French Canadians in Montreal...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

How about he Basque in Northern spain.... or hell even the French Canadians in Montreal...

Or Hussein's suppression of the Kurds and everyone else.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Or Hussein's suppression of the Kurds and everyone else.

By "guerrila warfare" I've meant an insurgency against a foreign occupying power, like the U.S. In Vietnam and Iraq, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the Nazis and Napoleon in Russia.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

By "guerrila warfare" I've meant an insurgency against a foreign occupying power, like the U.S. In Vietnam and Iraq, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the Nazis and Napoleon in Russia.

That is exactly how the basques and the kurds see their situations.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

That is exactly how the basques and the kurds see their situations.

Well, I understand these are not groundless perceptions. But these two situations are not the same as the ones I just listed. For one thing Basques and Kurds are minorities, and the perceived "occupying powers" have as much a claim to sovereignty over the area in dispute as these "insurgents." We're not talking about recent super power invaders from far off lands seeking to establish imperial dominion.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, I understand these are not groundless perceptions. But these two situations are not the same as the ones I just listed. For one thing Basques and Kurds are minorities, and the perceived "occupying powers" have as much a claim to sovereignty over the area in dispute as these "insurgents." We're not talking about recent super power invaders from far off lands seeking to establish imperial dominion.

Then I refer you back to the Second Boer War.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, I understand these are not groundless perceptions. But these two situations are not the same as the ones I just listed. For one thing Basques and Kurds are minorities, and the perceived "occupying powers" have as much a claim to sovereignty over the area in dispute as these "insurgents." We're not talking about recent super power invaders from far off lands seeking to establish imperial dominion.

This sort of makes my original point (and yes, I did have one) that the absolute nature of the premise ("committed guerrilla armies always win") is accurate only becasue of the definition used. Of course, we exclude the basques and the kurds becasue they don't fit and so forth.

I am not sure why I wanted to make this point, but there you have it.

Btw, I think Saddam did attempt to assert imperial control over the kurds and the Kurds are not the minority in significant parts of northern Iraq. Do you disagree with those statements?