See subject. I mean, it’s obviously not a walkover. My query would include the discipline and tactics of a full guerilla war. (If describing it as such is correct at all…)
Is the American Revolution comparable? Or other guerilla wars?
Thanks
They suck donkey balls. Their military style ‘attacks’ are generally complete failures resulting in total or near total destruction of the attacking force. At least when facing American troops. They have greater success against poorly trained Afghan troops.
IED and Suicide attacks can have devastating effect, but even there their success rate is fairly low.
Moved to Great Debates from General Questions.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Compared to most guerilla movements, they are pretty bad at it.
The American Revolution was sometimes guerilla, sometimes conventional. It’s not possible to win a war with purely guerilla tactics, eventually the occupier or tyrant has to be defeated on the field in open battle. Unless they don’t want to be there in the first place, in which case the wisdom of pursuing a guerilla war in the first place is in question.
I can only compare it to my experience in Iraq and as a civilian aid worker to boot. If the Iraqi insurgency came to Afghanistan, they would have captured every headline in every paper in the country within a week. Kabul is full of bars, hotels and cafes that cater to expats. In Baghdad, all those kinds of places were smoking holes in the ground in a year’s time. Complex, staged attacks were very common in Iraq with multiple timed bombs followed by small arms fire. In Afghanistan, they seem to manage one big attack a year and it always seems to end up with lots of them dead and not many casualties on the other side.
I would argue that it cannot reach the level of sophistication and efficiency as in Iraq because of the terrain. What I have experienced of Afghanistan, the road system is virtually non existent. Away from provinces like Herat (due to the busy trade link with Iran) it reverts to any journeys being hours and hours of agonizingly slow very dusty rumbly tracks carved into steep rugged mountainous terrain. In recent years there has been major road building in and out of the country to the east, but still i reckon this could be one reason why attacks have not been more frequent in Afghanistan, compared to the Arab provinces of Iraq.
Kabul is a different story, but I believe that one reason where there have not been as many horrendous ‘civil’ attacks is because of the nature of the insurgency. In Iraq the sectarian fury meant that civilian sites were directly targetted in horrendous suicide bombings and if western interests were taken out with it then all the better. The Afghans are generally not interested in sacrificing their own, to take out a few troops, as they know this will turn an increasing support for them in the populace, against them. The approach of insurgents in Afghanistan seems to be to infiltrate and specifically target. The cafes and restaraunts in Kabul were targetted at times, and there was suicide bombings. Lots of stuff never got reported in the mainstream. But yes, nowhere near as atrocious as the situation in Iraq.
IMO Iraq is Sunni versus Shia, Afghan is tribal.
Taking the drug trade out of the equation, the people who are on our side will be fighting us the next time it suits them, the people who are killing us will be our best mates for a bit if we give them money and turn a blind eye to their drug exportation.
And then if someone offends someones uncle, or their brothers sister or something then the loyal Afghans who have been fighting by your side, in between smoking opium and fucking (
Literally) their sisters will be killing us.
Politicians !
Its a total waste of time maties .
Taleban were obv. losing until they switched to IEDs as their main weapon.
Given they have AK47s, a bunch of explosives and some plastic containers - and they’ve restricted the might of NATO to the city and some rural strongholds - I guess Taleban aren’t doing so bad.
For what it’s worth, my understanding is that Hezbollah is pretty much the gold standard for modern terrorist groups in terms of military competence. These are folks who both engage in conventional terror tactics and successfully fought a basically conventional defensive war against the IDF - that takes some real chops. (Note that I call the 2006 war in Lebanon a “defensive” war from Hezbollah’s perspective simply because their military goal was to check and repel an Israeli advance; I’m not making a statement that Hezbollah’s political position was in any way praiseworthy).
Until fairly recently, the Tamil Tigers were probably the only folks on a par with Hezbollah in terms of military ability. They went down in 2009, but they had a very long and successful go of things, during which they basically ran a big chunk of Sri Lanka. For that matter, Hezbollah is in many ways the most powerful political actor in Lebanon - a major political party and a greater military power than the official army.
It probably isn’t a coincidence that the most capable terror groups extant (or recently so) have been those that came closest to being actual state actors. Partly, that’s because talented folks will naturally end up with a fair bit of power - but I think holding power probably also increases your capabilities a fair bit. When you’re just a bunch of random yahoos with guns, you don’t need much in the way of logistical, tactical, or strategic doctrine; but once you’re big enough to rival an actual state, you need serious, sober, long-term thinking if you’re going to keep that power.
Could it be because the folks in Afghanistan are largely illiterate individuals without a lick of education? I’ve read a few articles about how U.S. forces have had a hell of a time training Afghans to be an effective fighting force.
LOL. Can’t understand that, either. Funny really, the illiterates without a lick of education on the other side seem pretty good and making and laying IEDs.
And in this country, fathers are murdering their daughters for wanting to wear T shirts, trying to make 15 year olds marry 45 yearolds from Pakiistan , who they have never met, and recruiting people to kill British soldiers, even though they’ve spent their whole lives ,from, birth in England.
Whats your opinion on that ?
I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate here.