Actually, in the minds of those who study these things (Terrorism experts), the difference between guerrillas and terrorists is ONLY that terrorists attack civilians, whereas guerrillas attack military targets. Therefore, the attack on the USS Cole was not, as Clinton claimed, a terrorist act, but guerrilla warfare. Any attacks on U.S. military personnel in Iraq, regardless of the source, should be classified as guerrilla warfare. The size of the attacking force, its funding, and its means are irrelevant.
The Washington Post seems to have a good handle on what’s happening on the ground, among the grunts, in Iraq.
See this article, for instance.
I dare anyone to read that Post article and not have “quagmire” and “geurrilla war” come to mind.
I don’t see what your bisexuality has to do with your knee-jerk, Bush Apologista, Fox News tells me what to think drive-by posting style, but thanks for sharing.
BTW, if your are hitting on Desmostylus, using “dumbass” as a term of endearment is not going to get you very far. Also, you may want to rethink you rabid loyality to the ultra-right as they tend to take a dim view of your chosen lifestyle.
:rolleyes:
Maybe that is why most guerrilla tactics are not done out in the open and involve hit and run attacks.
And yes indeed war is expensive and guess who pays more in this little scenario?
I’ll give you a hint its the side whose home and family lives further away from the action.
During the “official” war, when coalition forces first started encountering fedayeen fighters, I noticed an unsettling resemblance with past guerrilla conflicts. The foremost example in my mind was the Spanish guerrilla war against Bonapartiste troops (during which the term “guerrilla” was coined).
I was particularly struck with historical accounts of the Spanish guerrillas’ tactics:
These tactics reminded me in many ways of the fedayeens’ strategy of targeting supply convoys and other vulnerable links in coalition forces, particularly during the rush to Baghdad.
When Baghdad fell so quickly, I was greatly relieved. Although I wasn’t convinced that the jubilation in the streets was solid proof of an warm welcoming of American troops, the initial lack of paramilitary attacks seemed to indicate that things were quieting down.
Now it’s clear things haven’t quieted down. And in our current handling of the situation, the analogy to Bonapartiste Spain seems apt:
Hmm. Why does that sound familiar?
I have learned that I’m not the only one to notice the resemblance between these guerrilla conflicts. It seems that Congressman Ike Skelton has also made the comparison:
Even if Wolfowitz is right about the Spanish guerrillas having had support of the local population–which might be debated–what he (and Rummy and Dubya et al) refuses to acknowledge is with every new reprisal by American forces against guerrilla attacks, the more likely it is that the local population in Iraq will start to sympathize with the insurgents. In some cities, that already seems to be the case. In other words, the insurgents in Iraq may not have widespread support among the Iraqi populace yet, but they may eventually, particularly as the attacks prompt more and more heated reprisals from coalition forces.
Bush’s “bring 'em on!” attitude doesn’t instill me with much confidence that things will improve.
What Wolfowitz also conveniently ignores is that, whatever information US intelligence might gather on the subject, there is really no way to know how many Iraqis support the guerrilla activities. After all, civilians supporting guerrilla groups against a larger occupying force tend to make a habit of trying to keep their activities secret from the leaders of that force.
If you HONESTLY wanted to know what the definition of a guerilla as it relates to todays world,logically,you’d make a list of conflicts chronologically in reverse order and do a study of each. NO,let’s go back to some ancient bullshit between France and Spain. I don’t know whether you’re on an ego trip and have to go to ludricous lengths to be “right” or you’re just stone stupid.
Well, you sure told them, Read_Neck. Impressive rebuttal.
I’m assuming you did that already and came to the conclusion that this wasn’t a guerilla war based solely on your results, right?
Cut him some slack, Read_Neck is probably still sore from looking at love from both sides now.
Ummm Yummy,eating your words with your morning coffee. I first read this in the Washington Pravda and was skeptical but after reading off the AP wire. The ability to deploy crew served weapons would meet the criteria for guerrilas. Loose the barnyard chickens. Feel free to sqwauk and flap to high hell. Meanwhile,I’ll throw a handfull of dirt in my coffee to suit my mood. (Goddammit,I can’t even spell a simple word this morning and don’t give a shit.)
If I read your post correctly RN you admitting that you were wrong. Is this so?
If so, kudos to you. That always ups my estimation of someone.
Damn and I was ready to respond to an earlier post…
But if R_N is admitting an error good for R_N
Yeah, it’s hard to jump on someone who refuses to persist in error.
But just to get in one more dig at the New York Post piece that R_N cited:
Compare with yesterday’s Washington Post:
I’ll leave it to the reader to guess which paper has the facts straight, and which one’s just making up the facts to suit its purposes.
Apparently you are equally unconcerned about making any sort of logical argument in this thread.
You know, that “ancient bullshit” is where we got the term “guerrilla” from in the first place (though it was hardly the first such paramilitary conflict in history).
My reference to the Napoleonic Wars derives from my focus on 19th-century history in my studies, and from a personal fascination with the works of Goya. In other words, I didn’t go to “ludicrous lengths” in coming up with that example–the Peninsular War naturally came to my nineteenth century biased mind.
If your specialty is in 20th-century history, then by all means point out some guerrilla conflicts that fit whatever your and Rumsfeld’s definition of a guerrilla war is–a definition which you have yet to clarify for us, I might add.
Resurrecting this thread to note this story:
U.S. General Says Iraq Has Become a Guerrilla War
So it looks like the only person who agrees with Rumsfeld’s assessment of Iraq is, well, Rumsfeld.
Gotta agree with you there. Squad level tactics and crew served weapons would definitely fit the bill. That’s why I “ate my words” when mortars started showing up.
You’ve still got me totally confused. Why would your definition of “guerillas” require “crew served weapons?” By your definition the Shining Path fighters, with just AK47s, would not be guerillas. What are they, then? Or do you even have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about?