I’ve seen some contentions lately that guerella warfare is, if not always or universally successful, at least mostly successful. I was wondering if this is/was true throughout history. Can anyone give examples of guerella movements or insurgencies that were unsuccessful? The only ones I can think of myself (off the top of my head) are in the Roman Period or during the British Empire and European colonial period…and in many of the latter cases though the insurgencies were initial failures, in the long run those nations DID (eventually) become free. And Iraq during Saddam of course.
So…how successful throughout history have such movements or asymetric styles of warfare been? What are some good examples of failed insurgencies or guerella warfare tactics.
[ol]
[li]The price is unbelievably high, often to the point of exceeding any possible damage caused by the “oppressor”. See–TAIPING REBELLION [/li][li]All fighting takes place on their own soil, doing incredible damage to their native place. See—Vietnam, Soviet Partisans [/li][li]The guerrilas often lack adequate representation in their own new government.[/li][li]The New Government often sees the Veterans of the guerrila army as potentially dangerous malcontents, and may jail/exile/kill them. See—Polish Resistance Movement in WW2 [/li][li]Often, the ideology of the new government has nothing whatever in common with the percieved goals of the guerrilas. See–Polish Resistance Movement, Khymer Rouge.[/li][/ol]
I would say this contention is mostly bullshit. There have been many failed guerilla campaigns throughout history. It’s one of those things that is remembered when they win, and forgotten when they fail.
The Tupamaros in Uruguay and the Monteneros in Argentina were essentially defeated in those countries’ Dirty Wars. In Peru the MRTA was wiped out and the Sendero Luminoso, although it still exists, is greatly weakened. Che Guevara’s guerilla campaign in Bolivia was a complete failure. Sanidino’s campaign against the Somozas in Nicaragua was defeated. Those are off the top of my head - I’m sure I could come up with a lot more if I did some research.
One question to consider here is how successful a guerilla campaign has to be before it is declared a success. Do they have to achieve all of their objectives? How long do they have to retain power? Is a power-sharing arrangement or independence of part of the country a victory if they were originally seeking to control the entire country?
The Irish Republican Army won independence for most of Ireland, but after 90 years is no closer to the basic objective of a unified Ireland, and they don’t look they will gain that anytime soon.
Who “'won” the guerilla wars in Nicaragua? Initially the Sandinistas won, then were defeated in elections. (Maybe you could consider that a victor for old Sandino.) Now they have formed a political alliance with their former Contra foes. Were the Sandinistas successful, or were the Contras?
The Khmer Rouge were initially successful in taking over Cambodia, then were defeated after only four years in power by a Vietnamese invasion. They reverted to guerilla war for the next 17 years, which was entirely unsuccessful. Do they count as a success?
The better question would be :Has there ever been a successful guerilla campaign that didn’t involve regular forces at one point or another? I’m having trouble thinking of one, especially one in a First-World country.
The early hostilities of the American Revolution may, to some extent, be considered guerilla skermishes. But the colonials were only able to claim success after they had faced the British in full scale battle, army-to-army – thanks to support and training from Lafayette, von Steuben, Rochambeau, and the French crown, among others.
I think the Arab uprising during WW1 was quite an effective guerella action. But it was effective I think mostly because it occured in parallel with more conventional war in the same area. The Arab guerellas could cut supply lines and harass the Turkish army, but they couldn’t hold land without the help of the regular army.
The classic guerrilla war has usually been described as a long-drawn out staged affair starting with a few dedicated individuals stealing weapons from the enemy and engaging in small-scale attacks, recruiting others and building up strength and materiel until they can challenge for control in a conventional war. Most attempts at this stall in the early stages, or the occupying power folds before the final stages, but I think the communist takeover in China is a pretty good example of how its supposed to happen.
As others have said, most guerilla campaigns fail because they lack the essential component of widespread popular support - essentially a bunch of radical loonies holed up in the woods aren’t likely to do well. If most of the population support the cause though, such as in the case of resisting an invasion, the success rate shoots up - these are the cases that everyone writes books about.
Why on earth would you classsify the Taiping Rebellion as a “Guerrilla War”? Did you even read your own link?
If you’re taking Mao’s model of guerrilla war, the final stage is a transition from unconventional to conventional warfare, so you **have[/v] to go conventional at some point and the ultimate goal is a conventional, set-piece victory, from the starting point of having no army at all. China and Vietnam are places where this happened. China is pretty much the only place where the guerrillas actually managed to make the transition without substantial outside help, due to some unique circumstances, i.e. the sudden removal of a very large Japanese army from a heavily populated and industrialized part of the country. The bloodiest final years of the Chinese civil war were fought between regular armies just like any battle of WW2, all the Chinese communist commanders, and Vietnamese ones too, were conventionally trained regular army officers.
The Arab Revolt in WWI is a bit iffy… I’ve never personally thought of it as a “Guerrilla War”, in the sense that the Arabs were supplied and trained by the British, had the full support of the British Government, and by the end of it were actually fighting as a coherent force instead of a horde of Bedouin on camelback with Muskets and Lee-Enfield rifles- they had Field Guns, Saladin Armoured Cars, Vickers and Lewis Machine Guns, and, IIRC, aircraft and naval support provided by the RFC and RN in varying quantities.
In short, they were acting more like the Viet Cong- working in conjunction with an established military force- rather than winning the war purely on their own.
T.E. Lawrence himself also mentions that without British support, the Arab revolt would have been a disaster, and I’m personally of the belief that it’s quite possible the Ottoman Empire may have lasted until WWII- or even later- if they’d crushed the Arab rebels in 1916.
I can’t think of an example in which a Guerrilla force has actually “won” a conflict, without either making the transition to a conventional military force, or amalgamating with an existing one.
Even the Viet Cong were effectively eliminated as a fighting force after the Tet Offensice, from what I understand…
Hope the political can of worms can stay contained, but:
It’s commonly thought hereabouts that the U.S. can’t ultimately win the war in Iraq, however a “win” may be defined. So when the U.S. forces are withdrawn, won’t the various insurgencies have emerged victorious?
IIRC, the IRA and the Citizen’s Army both during the Easter Rising fought in uniforms and dispensed with hit and run tactics to fight the British Army, relying on street fighting and seizing buildings. Wouldn’t that define them less as guerillas?
Amusing to note that during the Taiping Rebellion, the losers were those wearing red shirts
During the Easter Rising and the Irish Civil War the IRA and other groups may have fought in uniform and to some extent behaved as conventional forces. However, that hardly negates the fact that for much of the past 90 years the IRA, Provos, and other groups opposing Britain have fought mainly clandestinely and used terrorist tactics.
One might say that the IRA won its partial victory of securing independence of the Irish Free State as a conventional force. As a guerilla/terrorist force, they have failed in uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic.
An example of an opposing force losing the war? IIRC it was the ill treatment of prisoners after the rising was over and the fact that anyone rose up against the British at all that won people over to the side of the IRA.
