04 February 2012

VIOLENT POLITICS: AN EXCERPT, WITH COMMENTARY

The following excerpt is from a 2007 book titled “Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, And Guerrilla Warfare From the American Revolution to Iraq” by William R. Polk, published by HarperCollins.



I've included the excerpt because, as I read it, it occurred to me how amazingly relevant his conclusions are to the current topic of discussion, specifically, the first phases of the organization of a resistance movement. I highly recommend the book so far (I'm not done with it yet). I find it useful to refer readers to other source besides myself, who are able to verify (and sometimes disprove) my conceptual framework I present. Please note that my comments are highlighted, and italicized in bold font. Any highlighted and underlined original text emphasized is my doing.



Each of the with which I deal—and others that are too numerous to be fully recounted here—begins with almost ludicrously tiny groups of disaffected people who sally forth against vastly superior armies and police forces. The odds appear impossible—even absurd. Consider the record:



In this preliminary stage, the insurgents are too few to fight as guerrillas so they fight as terrorists. This is what happened in Cyprus, where fewer than eighty men attacked the ruling British colonial government that was supported by thousands of troops and police. In the Palestine Mandate, a tiny group to be known as Irgun Zeva'i Le-umi split off from the Jewish Agency's military force, the Haganah, to attack the British Administration; briefly during the Second World War, the Irgun ceased attacks on the British and Avraham Stern split off to form a new group, known as Stern or LEHI, and gathered a handful of followers, probably fewer than twenty, to continue attacks against the British...In Yugoslavia, for example, Drazha Mihailovic, a Serb who had been a colonel in the defeated royalist army, began the Cetniks with only twenty-six like-minded former officers and soldiers. In Greece, the resistance was formed by only fifteen men. Then, in Vietnam, the first action by the Viet Minh against the French in 1944 involved their total force—only thirty-four Vietnamese. Such small groups could not engage in guerrilla warfare. For them, acts of terrorism were the only possible acts...



As terrorist acts succeed other angry men and women join or form similar small groups. When the dominant government seeks to suppress them, two things frequently happen. Almost inevitably the government disrupts the lives of innocent bystanders and hurts or kills still more. In 1808 in Spain, Napolean's soldiers routinely hanged all rebels they caught and those suspected of favoring them. The relatives and friends of the hanged quickly came to hate the French. Against the Phillipine rebels, first the Spaniards and then the Americans undertook search and destroy operations that killed thousands of people in the 1890s, tortured or humiliated many more, and burned scores of villages. Doing so triggered Philippine resistance. In Yugoslavia during the Second World War, the Germans employed a draconian system of reprisals, executing not only all the partisans they captured but hundreds of civilian hostages in retaliation for the death of each German soldier. The relatives, neighbors, and friends of those killed by foreign troops sought revenge, and the place to get it was in the ranks of insurgents. So from a handful, their numbers grew (while the abuses of the regime are a key catalyst for recruitment to the resistance, I would argue that a successful PSYOPs campaign, focused on building rapport with the civilian population through infrastructure support will accelerate this process, helping to prove to the people, that the resistance truly does have their best interests at heart).



On Cyprus, the insurgent force tripled in a year, from about 80 to 273 active combatants back up by perhaps three times that many part-time fighters. Castro overthrew the foreign-supported Batista dictatorship with a rebel force that grew from a dozen or so to a force of about 1500 within a year. The Viet Minh military force grew from 34 in 1944 to about 5000 in just a few months. In Algeria, the guerrillas began with fewer than a hundred and ultimately reached about 13,000 in their fight against 485,000 French and Foreign Legion soldiers.



Numbers were important because they made possible the spread of insurgency and also because they attenuated the forces of their opponents, whom they forced to protect more territory. More important than numbers, however, was that in their operations, the insurgents came to symbolize the nationalist cause. Mao thought that identifying with the people was the single most important task of the guerrilla. Tito captured the position of national leader because, unlike Mihailovic who temporized, husbanded his resources, and even made deals with the Italians and Germans, he fought....



...some insurgencies never progress beyond this first, terrorist, phase. The reasons are several. Among them, perhaps the two most likely are that the original group fails to capture the aura of legitimacy or leadership and so cannot recruit enough followers, or that it cannot find sufficient space for maneuver into true guerrilla warfare....”



(I tend to think this last section may be the most detrimental to potential future resistance activities in America. One, too many people have been too brain-washed into believing the lie that following orders is being a good citizen and that the government always has their best interests at heart, even if they can't recognize it. Two, let's face reality, there are a LOT of rather disagreeable individuals within the Liberty community. The prevalance of many anarcho-capitalists, with their perceived “Me first! Everyone else, what-the-fuck-ever!” is not going to win friends and influence people in a positive manner, in a Judeo-Christian culture. Until the movement can present a public face that demonstrates its true character in a manner that is palatable to the general public, there will be little reason for Joe Snuffy the Ragman to believe that the Liberty movement offers him anything different than the current regime, with it's socialized health care schemes and welfare-based “free money.”



The final quoted line, regarding maneuver battle-space is the reason that I continually harp on the lack of realistism in the expectation of performing guerrilla combat operations from suburbia. You absolutely HAVE to possess sufficient space—that can be secured from regime encroachment—in order to build a guerrilla base support network.)



Nous Defions!



John Mosby



Somewhere in the mountains

10 comments:

  1. Dear Sir

    Disagree with observations.

    "You absolutely HAVE to possess sufficient space—that can be secured from regime encroachment—in order to build a guerrilla base support network."

    Symmetrical thoughts applied to Asymmetrical actions.

    The only HAVE that must be possessed or maintained is "software" that allows continued adaptation. To possess any space beyond ones boots is not guerrilla.

    Carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really? So, where are you going to train your new fighters who show up to join the resistance? On the same 36 square inches of ground you're standing on?
    Where are you going to place wounded/injured fighters to provide them adequate medical care to rehabilitate and re-join the fight?
    It's NOT symmetrical vs. assymmetrical in this case. It's reality. While initially a small group of guys can get together and hit a couple of convoys with ambushes, and then bug out home to hideout, they're going to have to cache the stuff they recovered somewhere. Shove it in the garage? Sure, until the next security force neighborhood sweep comes through, and your wife and kids end up hung from spikes through their feet....
    Leave it behind? Then you're trying to fight a war of attrition. That's not going to work out particularly well for a small band, now is it?
    I stand by the statement and philosophy. You absolutely HAVE to possess sufficient space--that can be secured from regime encroachment--in order to build a guerrilla base support network.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir,

      Points noted. Examples understood.

      Delete
  3. I agree with MG on this- "You absolutely HAVE to possess sufficient space--that can be secured from regime encroachment--in order to build a guerrilla base support network.

    I would add though, that "space" is not required for a guerrilla movement to begin or for guerrilla actions to happen. Such can be conducted on a micro scale, possessing only the ground beneath the fighters' feet.

    In order for it to grow, however, a base support network of some sort- requiring secure space- will be necessary at some point in time. This security does not necessarily mean impregnability, IMO. A hidden "space" is sometimes all a guerrilla network can hope for. As the movement grows, perhaps impregnability can come along with strength.

    The Afghans, with their caches and cave networks, and the Iraqis with their areas that were all but off limits to coalition forces (in reality) are examples.

    Security does not always have to mean impregnability in the conventional sense. My $.02.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir,

      In all living things growth occurs at the cellular level, it is worth noting destruction occurs at this same level.

      As for secure space. Can any be more secure than between the ears?

      Delete
  4. I think we're on the same page AP. The initial stages of insurgency, which the author incorrectly refers to as "terrorism," are not going to facilitate control of a large, "secure" area of resistance control. At that stage, a resistance is still comprised solely of the subversive underground, and perhaps a small auxiliary. However, once the numbers start increasing, you need more room/space for training, re-supply, and other support echelon activities. Thus the Tora Bora cave complexes of the Taliban, the extensive hideouts in the Pashtun-controlled tribal areas of Pakistan, and the urban enclave neighborhoods in Iraq...
    Anyone who discusses guerrilla warfare or resistance movements generally, without accounting for the support echelons necessary, is demonstrating gross naivete. You can work on hunting and fighting the enemy, or you can make sure your Joes have food in their bellies and ammunition to feed their weapons. There's a limit to how much a small-unit element or individual can accomplish...especially when he needs to maintain the facade of living a "normal" life.
    ND,
    JM

    ReplyDelete
  5. Without a relatively safe area (at least secure enough to have notice and or defend to allow the bulk of the force an orderly withdrawl)guerilla networks can only develop to a certain point. I would say that point is usually not far enough to force a settlement or topple the regime.

    In a perfect world there is a friendly border nearby that the regime is not willing to violate, at least on a massive scale, that will work with the guerillas. Examples would be Pakistan in both conflicts in Afghanistan or Cambodia/ Thailand/ Laos in Vietnam. If that doesn't work then just find a place in the middle of nowhere that can't be easily approached by armored vehicles and lay low starting from there. This worked in Cuba, China, the Philipines, Algeria and pretty much all of Africa at one point or another.It is pretty easy to accidentally miss or underestimate some guys playing commando in the hinterboonies. Another option is to dig into a supportive and homogenous urban neighborhood which will be hard to take and cause unacceptable civilian casualties (this only works if the regime plays relatively nice and won't level 50 city blocks. This worked in Iraq against the US).

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am curious, how do we include cyber space in guerrilla warfare equation? With the advent of cyber warfare and groups such as "anonymous"could that be consider a new form of guerrilla warfare? Rather then ambush a convoy, you could hijack drones or release damaging intel, re-route supplies or spread disinformation. All plausible and effective ways to disrupt those who would oppress.
    I have been reading Jefferson Mack's " the secret freedom fighter" and like some of what I have read so far."The secret freedom fighter has to be the invisible man, always working in secret. Because he is one man working alone, he doesn't have to do as much damage in a single operation as a guerrilla force would to justify the risk. And he doesn't have to worry that someone will betray him and turn him in to the authorities." Which goes against conventional guerrilla warfare doctrine but does hint at emerging cyber warfare. A single could cause a lot of damage.
    He also wrote-"The secret freedom fighter maximizes his own freedom while minimizing the risks. He foregoes the psychological need for recognition by acting alone, contrary to man's need to band with others in times of trouble."
    In a suburban environment wouldn't a " secret freedom fighter" be more effective?
    The movie " Battle for Algiers" is a good example of an urban guerrilla group. They had the kasbah to hide out in which gave the insurgents a distinct advantage but in the end was their undoing since they were easily located.
    Carlos Marighella gives us this food for thought from his " Mini manual of the Urban guerrilla-
    THE INITIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE URBAN GUERRILLA
    The dynamics of urban guerrilla warfare lie in the guerrilla's violent clash with the military and police forces of the dictatorship. In this conflict, the police have superiority. The urban guerrilla has inferior forces. The paradox is that the urban guerrilla is nevertheless the attacker.
    The military and police forces, for their part, respond to the conflict by mobilizing and concentrating greatly superior forces in the pursuit and destruction of the urban guerrilla.
    The guerrilla can only avoid defeat if he depends on the initial advantages he has and knows how to exploit them to the end, to compensate for his weakness and lack of material.
    The initial advantages are:
    1. He must take the enemy by surprise.
    2. He must know the terrain of the encounter.
    3. He must have greater mobility and speed than the police and other repressive forces.
    4. His information service must be better than the enemy's.
    5. He must be in command of the situation, and demonstrate a decisiveness so great that everyone on our side is inspired and never thinks of hesitating, while on the other side the enemy is stunned and incapable of acting.
    MG I like what you have to say and I am eager to learn more. Thanks for all you have done in your support of the Free Forces.This is a fascinating discussion. Keep up the Fire!

    ReplyDelete
  7. DC,
    I've read Mack's book. I agree with it, to a degree. I see his "Secret Freedom Fighter" as more an element of the subversive underground than as a straight-up "guerrilla," in the doctrinal, historical sense of the word. An effective adjunt to a total resistance movement? Absolutely! An effective means to overthrow an occupying regime? Not by itself. It's all part of the overall paradigm. I responded to your cyber-space portion of the question in a new post though.
    ND,
    JM

    ReplyDelete
  8. Having just stumbled upon your blog a few days ago, I congratulate you on your efforts.

    I'll have to add "Violent Politics" to my reading list, which seems to be growing rather than shrinking.

    ReplyDelete