Printable View
Can Muslim Insurgencies ever be put down permanently?
It seems that Muslim Insurgents for the most part have a zeal and tenacity that the average insurgent of a non-Muslim persuasion would not.
It seems these qualities of Muslim Insurgents make them the best there is when it comes to doing the job of being Insurgents. As re-surging later if their Insurgent Movement is put down temporarily.
Is this an accurate analysis?
Can they be "put down" permanently? No. Can they be stopped in other ways? Yes.
Remove some of those ridiculous ROEs and the American military could put an end to both insurgencies we're facing in about a month. :yes:
No you cant destroy an idea.
I'm curious on what you base this analysis on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
IMO putting down a Muslim insurgency is about as hard as putting down a non-Muslim one and that is generally quite hard, especially that permanently part (that said, it can take a century or two for the resurging to come).
As long as the idea is alive and well, there's always a risk, but ideas can be forgotten and people persuaded to not follow the idea (and depending on method, can eventually make people forget the idea).
So any insurgence can be put down, but it's not easy.
“It seems that Muslim Insurgents for the most part have a zeal and tenacity that the average insurgent of a non-Muslim persuasion would not”; Comparing to North Vietnam Communists, they still have so catch-up to do…
Both France and England occupied many Muslim Countries in the past, and broke any resistance in theses countries then occupied them during around one century without getting too much troubles… But the times were different. However, you assumption has still to be prove…
three good replies and one fruitcake one .
the 3 good replies pretty much answer the question .
:oops: Brenus replied too .........in each case the insurgencies resurfaced , and since you mention Vietnam it is worth pointing out that when France applied the lessons it learned there in Algeria they put down the insurgency quickly and completely ....but it came back very quickly and much much bigger and badder.Quote:
Both France and England occupied many Muslim Countries in the past, and broke any resistance in theses countries then occupied them during around one century without getting too much troubles
A good exampe of why the fruitcake answer is just soooooo silly .
The main reason for having a Muslim insurgency is that their perception in the Muslim World is that the Western World has no respect for Muslim traditions and thus only want to change the customs of the Muslims to fit Western ideals. The only way that the western world can even come remotely to stopping insurgencies is if this perception is stopped which would require a tremendous amount of effort and no doubt some severe revamping of current foreign policies. Given our politician's stubborness regarding the Middle East, I doubt that will happen anytime soon
“....in each case the insurgencies resurfaced”: Yep, but not as such. My point was Muslim Countries are not more (or less) resilient.
And if you considered that the Algerian conquest was over in 1857, and the beginning of the War of Independence started in 1954, that give around 100 years of peace, with no nationalist or religious insurrection.
“and since you mention Vietnam it is worth pointing out that when France applied the lessons it learned there in Algeria they put down the insurgency quickly and completely”: Yes and no. In Indochina, the French re-learn what was to fight a guerrilla war. But the Algerians never succeeded really to reach the level when the guerrilla becomes an army: The Vietminh having 5 divisions in DBP, for ex (or in Na San).
For me, a successful anti-guerrilla war was the one during the French Revolution, the Republican against the Chouans.
“but it came back very quickly and much much bigger and badder.” Not really again. But political decision was made (decolonisation and Independence recognised) so no need of more troops.
Leave their countries and they cease to exist, as they've won. But no-one will ever do that (Israel to start with).Quote:
Can Muslim Insurgencies ever be put down permanently?
As long as they think their countries are occupied they will fight, you would do the same. It's not just muslims. Would America invade (stupid example:) Norway, the Norwegians won't just say: "ah well, ok, take our country". They will fight for it, and guerilla warfare is the best as you can't lose if you do it well.
Yes, but during the years of the crusades we were marching around in plate armour, potential rebels were not. Hardly a fair game i think. This time round though they have AK's and plastic-explosives. This time we're more evenly matched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
its not about their religion. its about people wanting freedom from oppression, and that can't be defeated. as someone else said, you cant beat an idea. (unless you make concessions and let other ideas take hold).
The best examples of winning insurgencies are with the brits in N.I. It wasnt until they put away the armor and guns and stayed away from the civilians that people started getting jobs and making money and deciding that they shouldnt go blow up brits tonight because they had work in the morning.
What ???????Quote:
And if you considered that the Algerian conquest was over in 1857, and the beginning of the War of Independence started in 1954, that give around 100 years of peace, with no nationalist or religious insurrection.
Well you moved the date from 1839 to 1857 so that counts out 3 campaigns , but then it carried on in the 1860s again in the 70s and the tuareg terriroties carried on till the turn of the century , then the nationalists resurfaced in the 20's the 30's again in the 40's and the French finally gave up in the 50's ...so where is this hunderd yeas of peace you talk of ? even with mass killings and deportaion , the seizure and settlement of land , even with a very long standing reign of brutal military repression they couldn't permanently put down the locals .
Though of course the lesson there is that the brutality repression and colonisation feeds the re-emergence of insurgency instead of stopping it
For this kind of issue, binary forced choice questions suck.
You present me with one option, "put down," and its negation. Thanks a whole hill of beans.
Question construction forces a "no" answer since your phrasing implies complete removal of such an insurgency. Even historically successful counter-insurgency efforts have not been that "sweeping."
How about:
Yes, such insurgencies can be defeated.
Yes, such insurgencies can be marginalized/minimized if not completely defeated.
Yes, such insurgencies can be marginalized/minimized if not completely defeated, but most of the success must be non-military if it is to be lasting.
No, it is impossible to defeat an idea save by deploying a better idea. Military action in such a context is meaningless waste.
No, such insurgencies must be accomodated/suborned because defeat is impossible.
No, such insurgencies can only wither away from lack of interest, nothing can actually defeat them.
You can add GAH for the poll spoofers if you wish.
Who mentioned the crusades?Quote:
Originally Posted by currywurry
And why (or how) is plate armour an advantage in, say, the Middle East or southern Asia?
Pure wishful thinking. Look back at other counterinsurgencies, and you'll see that the average length is 9-10 years. Regardless of the ROEs.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
In an insurgency the people are the terrain; harsher methods do not equate victory. Unless, of course, you're talking about killing everybody. Yup, that would end a guerrilla war, as well as everything else.
I say 'yes' you can put down insurgencies.
Prime Examples:
Native Americans.They haven't risen in rebellion ever since the Indian Wars in the 19th Century.
Philippines. We smashed their guerrilla war after years of harsh conflict in the area. However, in the end, we got more people into jobs, and when you have a family to care for with a steady income, you become less suicidal.
Insurgencies can be defeated if they commit a mistake. They aren't perfect, and an example would be in Italy. The Red Brigades (I think) killed a minister of state who was very popular. Everyone turned on the Brigades and it soon died.
Peru is an example I think.
Insurgencies can be put down, but using blunt military force is a bad way to do it.
uh, with the Indians and the Philippines we massacred entire populations to achieve victory, those standards are unacceptable today, and should have been then. We cant walk into Iraqi villages like we did in the Philippines and order "kill every boy over 11 years of age".
I said Insurgencies can be put down, and proved why.
You can destroy an insurgency.
Now if you don't go by my example, that is okay.
Also, Zak, we would probably just lock all the Sunni's into concentration camps.
Terrorism requires something like 10% tacit support minimum or it dies.
The key is to get unemployment under 10% and to increase living standards for all. If life is good people will generally go with the flow. Your average family man only picks up a gun when his friends start dieing.
we can, it would not be pleasant or very peaceful but in the end there will be no more muslims... uh muslim insurgents i meant to say.
(that was a joke srry if it offended you or any of your Islamic freinds.)
Brenus mentioned French and English occupation of Middle Eastern countries in the past, so i presume he is referencing the crusades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
He would be referring to post-Ottoman Empire when the Middle East was divided between the British (Iraq, Egypt) and French (Palestine, Lebanon).
“Well you moved the date from 1839 to 1857 so that counts out 3 campaigns” What I was saying is the end of the conquest of Algeria is in 1857. The resistance during the conquest is as normal as in others countries…
“but then it carried on in the 1860s again in the 70s and the Tuareg territories carried on till the turn of the century , then the nationalists resurfaced in the 20's the 30's again in the 40's and the French finally gave up in the 50's ...so where is this hundred yeas of peace you talk of ?” Can you just see what happened in the same time in France itself? You will find more unrests and blood than (just think Commune de Paris or the Revolt of the Cannuts in Lyon) in the Algerian Territory.
It didn’t frighten or put in danger the French grip on Algeria (and Tunisia, Protectorate on Morocco, etc). So, yes, it was a period of peace, not complete, but no massive insurrection kind of Mahdi of Khartoum.
“even with mass killings and deportation , the seizure and settlement of land , even with a very long standing reign of brutal military repression they couldn't permanently put down the locals .” No, you can’t, but again that was a “normal” procedure at these times. Again, all the Communards, survivors of the killing were deported either in Algeria or New Caledonia, as Louise Labbe, for ex.
But the repression was so hard that it took a long time to get a viable insurrectional movement…
”Though of course the lesson there is that the brutality repression and colonisation feeds the re-emergence of insurgency instead of stopping it”: Her, I should say the lesson is before to start a war, be sure you had a plan, a goal. Algeria is a good example of what can happen when you have no idea what to do and just react to events.
“Brenus mentioned French and English occupation of Middle Eastern countries in the past, so i presume he is referencing the crusades.” No, I was referring to the Colonial empires of both countries: Sudan, India/Pakistan, Egypt etc for the English, North Africa (mainly) for the French.
First, it seems that terrorism is being lumped in with guerrilla warfare. They are not the same; and though guerrillas may employ terrorist tactics - it doesnot make a terrorist a guerrilla fighter.
Of interest:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...rilla-warfare/
See Chapters one (ch01) and three specifically, though I suspect many here have read them and others will view them as to lengthy to take the time.
Distinguishing Terrorism from Guerrilla Warfare:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/2004-03-10-1.html
Can we (USA) win in Iraq, or the M-E? No., but we can be influential by employing economic insentives and diplomacy - military means are subjective and counterproductive. Can the Iraqis' win. Yes. It is more than a matter of symatics - it is a matter that only the people of a land can make it a viable nation. No amount of outside interference can change the principle that a nation is its people - not the outsiders (insurgents if you wish)- it is the people that must decide what form of leadership they want. They can be complacent and allow a military dictatorship, or organize despite secular differrences to create a viable political platform - as yet a leader has not risen there to do this (or when he has he was assassinated).
The Muslim insurgency in Iraq is being sponsored by Syria and Iran, to say nothing of Saudia Arabia interests. Can we defeat those sponsoring them, or force them to comply with our political agenda in the region? No and no. Sure we could invade theses nations - but, what would we gain? The Bushys' have proven that the more pressure (economic or military threats) we attempt against Iran or Syria, the more we bring out the nationalism of their populaces. We'ld have been better off keeping our mouths shut as to implying an "axis-of-evil" or "with us, or against us" rhetoric of confrontation. These comments might play well in Des Moines, but not on the world stage.
To acheive any goal, we must first come to terms that thes insurgents do not equate to guerrilla in warfare, but are nothing more than outside agitators that are nothing more than pawns employed by others for their own sovereign goals. Cease equating them with guerrillas that have political goals and define them as the thugs they are.
Can we defeat terrorism? Sure, as soon as the $Billionairs$ and first world governments determine that sharing the wealth with the lesser peoples and countries is advantageous. Then again, WAR is big business. So, when pigs fly.
:balloon2:
everything has its time, and then fades.
some quicker than others depending on how much of a public failure they are perceived to be.
"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
Ideas can be killed off quite easily, although you'll need a genocide.
What is that? Stalin?
"Muslim" insurgency? That's the key word; Muslim. The foundation of Islam is violence, so no, you can never put down "Muslim" insugency because violence is too deeply rooted in this belief system.
Violence is not a cornerstone of Islam. It's like accusing Christians of being militant because we crusaded. Religions are typically peaceful organizations that have militant leaders who take it to far.
So you are saying the Muhammed was a peaceful man who wanted to spread the word of god, but got a little carried away with the robbing, raping, and murdering aspect of his "spiritual" life? Anyway, like I said, there will always be violent "muslim" insurgencies. As you mentioned about the Catholics (which by the way did their little crusade thing over a thousand years after christ's death) I'm not too worried about them. The worse their leaders do these days is bung stretching with the boys. Don't worry, I'll keep an eye out for these "militant christians". But to be honest with you, I'm a little more worried about the guys yelling Allah Akbar. They seem to be doing that a lot lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
MM, you fall into the trap that religions are basically the same - and ergo all want peace. The reality of all religions is that they are right and all others are wrong, but they are lenient enough to forgive the others ('til now, again). It is true that violence may not be a cornerstone of Islam or Christianity, but both were born upon it. With Christianity it was more a matter of the one winning determining what Christianity meant - versus Islam having the (accept Allah or die - pretty persuasive arguement in my book, especially to a desert people) spilt after the initial (39th profit) leader died.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Now, that is an over simplification - but, reality is that religion in general is a trap. It justifies the killing of those that don't believe as one does and justifies it by excusing those committing the breaking of the first rule of (many) their commandment.
Regardless, it doesnot answer the question being posed - though it was presented in a prejudicial manner.
Point is, a religion becomes an event only to those that accept it as their reality of how to live their life, conduct it, and expand their religion. If anyone challanges their beliefs they automatically become their enemy.
Seriously, wtf was Bush thinking? Except, they were his enemy because they didn't accept Christ as their saviour. I, jest not.
There is not, nor ever has been anything peaceful about religion. It has always been a matter (as in all things) that those that win make their religion for everyone within their power the same.
Thems the facts.:book:
If I may be excused for moving the discussion away from stretched bungholes for a moment (thanks for the image, Dave), there's a really good article about current counterinsurgency operations in Iraq at the Small Wars Journal. Required reading if you want to get a grip on what's going on.
The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that “80% of AQ leadership have fled” don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.
This is not some sort of kind-hearted, soft approach, as some fire-breathing polemicists have claimed (funnily enough, those who urge us to “just kill more bad guys” usually do so from a safe distance). It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents. On the contrary, it is based on a hard-headed recognition of certain basic facts.
Nice to see someone has actually read a counterinsurgency manual. The comments on the article are just as informative:
This is modern war. We can no longer produce [a desired outcome] in a nuclear flash. Now it takes years and years of a slow, hard slog. You say that you don't like wars like that? Well, neither do we. The military personnel who would actually PREFER to grind through something counterinsurgency style rather than blast the enemy, plant your flag in his eye socket, and declare victory, are few and far between, if they exist at all. I'm not one of them. But what I, and my comrades here at the Small Wars Journal are, are professionals who know that you cant always get what you want.
So you're saying christianity was spread through peace? The people who resisted was not tortured and killed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Christianity was spread through the sword 90% of the time. Same as Islam.
Today, there are muslims spreading hate, and there are christians spreading hate. But there are also both christians and muslims doing the opposite, and they're both in the majority, fortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
More accurately, Christianity spread despite the (Roman) sword.
Islam was forged through violent slaughter.
Not this supremacist garbage again.
what supremacist garbage? :help:
Que PJ for starters.
Oh come on Watchman that isn't fair , I bet you couldn't find many examples of Christianity spreading by people being offered the choice of convert or die .Quote:
Que PJ for starters.
Whatever next eh , you are probably going to claim that christians dug up bodies and burnt them in a public dispay of love singing about gods greatness because the deceased had died following the wrong religeon .
Get with the program will you , christians don't do them sort of things , its only muslims .
Now then Furunculus , you had a question I believe ?
I'm really more concerned with the blatantly biased and tendentious undertones of the "Islam is an evil cult" line of reasoning. Because it basically boils down to their religion being worse than our religion for no other reason than them having done the exact same stuff everyone always does in comparable circumstances.
Double standards essentially.
Well, when the First Baptist Church of Westboro starts flying planes into the buildings of the US, then I'll worry about the "double standard".Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
After they had gained the power of the emperor, they started to spread it "through violent slaughter".Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Islam and christianity is similar there, they were peaceful until they gained power(in arabia and the roman empire respectively), then they turned to slaughter.
Didn't you have those merry abortion-clinic bombers at some point ? I understand the Irish have some problems with comparable wonks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Anyway, in the case you missed it, I was referring to the historical perspective and particularly the glaring lack thereof in certain circles.
In fairness, we have had an ongoing problem with homegrown wackos blowing things up. Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, James Copp, the Army of God, and every mouth-breathing wacko who plans to act on The Turner Diaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Ah the wonderful world of Dave , people who murder in the name of religeon are only people who murder in the name of religeon if they fly airplanes into buildings in the US...yep that makes sense .Quote:
Well, when the First Baptist Church of Westboro starts flying planes into the buildings of the US, then I'll worry about the "double standard".
Doesn't the US of A these days also host honest-to-God ecoterrists ? I think I read something along those lines in one of those quaint US cop mags our premiere bookstore stocks...
“I bet you couldn't find many examples of Christianity spreading by people being offered the choice of convert or die”: Saxons by Charlemagne, Albigeois, Cathares, in South France, Aztecs, Incas and other South Amerindians, just these represent millions of poeple…
Never bet when you speak about religions, espacially the monotheistic ones...:laugh4:
As I like to point out, the technically pacifist Buddhists have over the millenia engaged in their quota of more-or-less religiously inspired violence as well. Take the Ikko-ikki for one; pretty much the Japanese version of the German Peasants' War.
Brenus you win the bet :2thumbsup: care to name a few more ?Quote:
Never bet when you speak about religions, espacially the monotheistic ones...
Or how about the part about digging up and burning corpses for not being christian ?~;)
Conversation started out OK, then took a U-turn into the dark woods of religion-bashing. Therefore, thread is preemptively closed, before posters step over the line again, and get into trouble.
Thanks for all contributions. :bow: