How the fuck are you supposed to win a guerilla war?

>if you kill your enemies, they win

>Hajis could never pull it off here. don't forget, it gets harder each time
At the risk of getting political, sneaking in through Mexico isn't too hard with heroin money, and hit and run attacks aren't too difficult, even in America. You could also rely entirely on infrastructure attacks instead of attacking civilians, I bet the US government wouldn't be too keen on further intervention if the entire east coast lost power.

Napalm

Saturation nuclear strikes on all known or suspected guerrilla population centers.

Attached: 5fc4c02ce36ead80f663fc506dee54fe.gif (500x242, 971K)

Based ISIS member

> kill 1 enemy and like 6 casuals
> one is a kid
fukc
> haji news network:
AND IN OTHER NEWS, WICKED INVADERS KILLED ANOTHER 8 BABIES
> bodies.jpg
> be 'normal' family watching the news
> mom: dang, they really do kinda suck
> dad: god bless on those who resist
> son: i can win my father's approval by blowing shit up??
and the cycle continues.

The real battles aren't fought with bullets or even explosions.
they're fought politically.

> cross border
ascuss me suh where is
*looks at paper*
wah sing don dee she?

Cartels would NEVER allow Hajji's to use their tunnels to attack to the us, because that would risk full on intervention in the drug war. They're basically content with knowing they can pay off 90% of Mexican/US law enforcement along the border, and gun down the occasional bad apple without having to deal with Force Recon/SEALS/Delta etc hunting them down cause they took heroin money they didn't need from Hajji to sneak in with a coke shipment

This

Sorry to break it down to you but here in Mexico there is some isis influence.

honestly, it's possible.
I'm just pissed you post these statements and expect them to be taken for granted with no source or broofs

>no military solutions

literally the only solution is to control the media and let your military loose. make the soldiers doing the savagery sign confidentiality agreements that expire after the war. when the truth comes out, just curbstomp the commie college kids protesting and tell them stop whining its already over, and we won.

that's why it was so fun to live through the 90's in the balkans, right?
because NOBODY is going to remember you taking their uncle to the bridge and cutting his throat

there is a cost to everything and you faggots gotta learn to pay up or spend less.

Armies cannot feed themselves. They either live off the civilians, or from support from your enemies elsewhere. Get the civilians on your side, eliminate the civilians through genocide or enslavement (note they have to be deported for this to work, sells them as slaves several countries away), and shut down the border in the last case.

What the fuck, where? I’ve never even seen a muslim in Jalisco or Michoacán. Why the fuck would they even associate with ISIS? The oil they steal from Pemex is enough to fuel all their shitty technicals, why on earth would they need isis

>> haji news network:
>AND IN OTHER NEWS, WICKED INVADERS KILLED ANOTHER 8 BABIES
Follow up with an air strike on the news studio and/or assassinations of media execs and see how long they continue coverage like that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency
like this?

> take the atrocities off the screen
> and into the lives of every single person
> expect violence to transition from to victory
sure bud

Wars are won by breaking your enemies' will to fight. Doesn't matter what they remember if they're too terrified of your regime to do anything about it.

old wars, yes.
asymmetric conflict and insurgencies, no

Worked for Bill Clinton during the Balkan War. Hardly anyone remembers him bombing TV studios that were producing propaganda against us, because it was effective.

Rooftop Koreans.
Many rooftop Koreans.

yeah, because you're dumb comment adequately summarizes the battlefield and political situation

you know enough to be considered an expert

Humans still work the same. The trick is applying enough pressure without ending up facing a multinational coalition and war crime trials.

What he said still holds true for insurgencies, its human nature after all, but the issue is that its much more complicated to effectively pressure the will of insurgents. Like all wars, there is no "one size fits all" strategy for insurgencies.

Attached: 19th nervous breakdown.jpg (1480x928, 227K)

Nice

>be 'normal' family watching the news
>mom: dang, they really do kinda suck
>dad: god bless on those who resist
>son: i can win my father's approval by blowing shit up??
What family? I blew up the fucking building, everyone is dead. Do they want to not get blown up next time? I made sure they know that they should rat out and inform us of precisely where the insurgency cells are hiding out so that we can kill them with minimal collateral.

Are they telling us they'll still "resist"? Oops, there goes another building.

If you want to conquer and subjugate an entire country then stop acting like a fucking dainty flower. Maybe the proliferation of on-call A2G support has made armies around the world far too soft.

the other thing you can try is ruining their propaganda machine by not being an absolute tool.

the papers that defined the creation of the United States enumerates a few items as inalienable rights.
those get respected, you just don't get uprisings.
it doesn't happen

Sure worked in Vietn-
Oh right...

oh, look.
another edgy teen who wishes to rule over a radioactive wasteland because he doesn't understand true power

You don't. You have to bait them into convetional conflict.

Ok, now do you an actual solution to countering insurgencies?
Because what you've proposed is about as feasible as having a platoon occupy every square kilometre. "Let god sort them out" hasn't been a viable option for centuries.

I mean this worked out great for the soviets when they tried it in Afghanistan, why haven't we tried it?

Attached: Afghanistan.gif (480x360, 2.75M)

There have been successful wars to counter insurgencies that didn't escalate into a conventional conflict.

>blow up a building and demand that others turn over insurgents
>you know absolutely nothing
>literal invaders blow up another building and demand you take it up the ass
>still know nothing, starting to get really pissed
>next building gets blown up, your brother / uncle / 4th removed cousin / love boy gets blown up
>now have zero patience for the invaders
>at best, have created an incredibly hostile bystander. At worst, have created new insurgents

Your assumptions are shit. You're taking for granted the questionable idea that the natives would immediately bend over and take it in the ass despite strong religious (mandatory Jihad against invaders) and cultural drivers. You're assuming that they will magically know who to go to, and how to provide timely, actionable intelligence and that an infrastructure exists to efficiently disseminate it. You assume that the vast majority of people know anything. All of these assumptions have been proven wrong with a decade and a half of experience and millions of dead people.

In actuality, you are a chickenhawk fuck who veils their desire to have brown people murdered for no good reason in places we have no business being in.

If there's any sort of ISIS or other jihadi movements within Mexico, the cartels are going to be slotting floppies because a US intervention is even worse for business.

The US does have business being in afghanistan at least, its a shame the war in Iraq undermined all that. Its kind of amazing how badly the US government screwed the pooch in that war.

You know, I don't get why the US randomly forgets their tactics of toppling leaders and substituting them with allies. Worked out fine most of the time (don't look at Cuba though), then suddenly you hamburger fucks go "hey remember that thing that worked? Let's get troops in a country we have no place in being in the first place, of course we'll be welcomed with open arms!"
I mean fine, toppling leaders gave you Khomeini in Iran. Invading shit for resources gave you ISIS. Stop forgetting what works fine before someone listens to Trump on how they should forget that Guaidó guy and just storm into Venezuela

Honestly the US should just do a better job of installing puppets, or pick better puppets. Its strange that the US fails at this very basic facet of power projection. Now that I think about it, the US isn't very good at solving problems that can't be drowned in resources.

Only way to win is total war. Basically kill everyone and destroy everything. If you're a pussy you'll lose

This sounds like something an American police officer would think?

violate all """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""human rights"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Well that sorta thing is to be expected when military action is decided on the basis of "the vice president wants to test out this cool legal theory on executive power"

You fight insurgents as insurgents. Take off the uniform, get into the local pop. Infiltrate enemy orginization. Gather Intel, interrogation, good source handling, blackmailing exc. Assassinate leaders, destroy weapons cache, raid safe houses. See SAS operations in the troubles and operation Phoenix against the veit cong. Setting up checkpoints and patrolling just annoy the locals and give the enemy easy targets.

You don't. Yankee go home.

Unrestricted warfare.

The American Civil war, WW2 should have shown people that even the most dedicated, fanatical nations and morally/religiously righteous can lose their fighting spirit when their lands are visibly decimated, their food gone, their cities reduced to rubble and their leadership who didn't bend a knee are shot.In the Civil war the burning of Atlanta and the March to the sea was the breaking point. Dresden was the funeral pyre that the allies used to break the Germans, Nagasaki and Hiroshima to shatter the Japs devotion to their empire. They had to know that we were willing to do anything and sacrifice anyone to destroy them if they continued to resist.

Sri Lanka is the best modern example of how a gurrilla war should be fought. No news cameras following your troops to make them look like the good guys, complete media blackout. No ROE or bullshit to limit your troops or give the enemy any reprieve, if it isn't on its knees begging for forgiveness or saluting your banners its an enemy to be crushed. No dissent allowed, Martial law in full effect.

Basically reminding the enemy populace that supports them that they are doing so at a risk to their own livelihoods. You'll reward those who wholly support you, you'll destroy anything else.

Machiavellian level of political removal that replaces any figureheads the enemy could use to unite with your puppets.

No one has the balls to do it anymore except third world shitholes that could care less about their own people than the enemy.

Attached: 1511951867682.jpg (604x405, 92K)

imagine being so against the idea of learning that you not only refuse to research, but also refuse to READ THE THREAD

this is more like it. Combined with political and media power, it can end wars in a good way

Al Qaedas insurgency was basically a black swan event. No one was expecting a small group of extremists in a desert camp to launch such a explosive brutal insurgency. The US was expecting a small baathist insurgency but nothing compared to what al Qaeda brought to the table.

Yup. That's what bothers me about the leftist (actual left, not Jow Forums's idea of left) discourse of "the imperialist USA runs the world through puppet leaders!". When was the last time Americans actually did that? All I recall in recent history of US interventions is they NOT doing it when they should've

Unleashing armored gorillas

Yup, pull out the regular army and just send in 1000s of plainclothes CIA and Delta niggers. Then launch a massive propaganda campaign that basically says all the insurgents are pedophiles.

your post disagrees with itself.
also, total war was not decisive an any of the conflicts you listed.
Each of those losing militarizes fought until they lacked the hardware and resources to do it.
Total war destroys the means that would allow you to "reward those who wholly support you" and you will never be strong enough to destroy all else

In no cases did they just get so sad and scared that they gave up.
war is a political and economic issue before it's about tanks and guns.

is this what my race is known for?
shit music and roof apes?

it it love user?

Both ways work but the unrestricted warfare worked better for 3rd world savages.

Being sneaky undercover cops with more guns worked in more civilized places obviously and Phoenix was basically assassinations with military support involved.

I counter your high falutin' reading demands with my own.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Government_offensive_in_the_North

Attached: 1516086135300.png (415x620, 298K)

you forgot a few things
> getting into communism, but unironically
> bragging about spicy cabbage pickles
> having the absolute best alphabet of all time
> the most popular movies and drama, outside hollywood

plus, those "roof apes" are good citizens who fight for freedom

Intel, informant networks, isolating guerrillas from population centers, providing support and aid to civilians, lots of foot patrols, INTEL. Even then, good chance you'll lose.

Depends on who you mean by "the US". The then chief of staff of the US army warned that post-war in Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops. So did reports from the army war college. Problem was Cheney and Rumsfeld believed it would be a simple task, so they ignored anyone saying otherwise no matter how qualified they were

>no good reason
I don't care about the reason, the OP didn't state "reasons". I'm assuming there is enough of a reason for an invasion and now the invader is asking how to clean up the remaining resistance.

What patience, exactly? Who exactly is holding the cards here? If the opponent was strong enough to pose a real threat then this wouldn't be a guerilla war. The only patience they get have is waiting to strike and providing support in secret to those that would. Incidentally, that reduces MY patience. If they don't know anything then they better start getting to work finding out.

Honestly if the country is that important enough to be invaded then I'd much rather just kick out everyone and replace them with my own. Otherwise I would not want to go to war in the first place. The problem with YOU is that you've become accustomed to going to war for trivial reasons and then crying about how hard it is to keep everything in control while wearing kids gloves.

Good statecraft requires years of work, an experienced cadre of policymakers, and patience. The American executive branch

>has eight years at most
>principles are political appointees of varying degrees of competence and the shelf life of a raw chicken
>centered around bombastic "we'll fix this half-century old problem now!" rhetoric for the voters

The United States has had some triumphs. The Spanish-American war went so well that we ended up with territories and responsibilities we didn't even *want* from the outset. The end of the Cold War and reunification of Germany was a masterwork of Statecraft. but that's because the senior appointees had a shit ton of experience, the principles had good chemistry, and the policymakers had their head on straight. Fifteen trillion things went right, and we were competent enough to capitalize.

This juxtaposes with the overwhelming failure that was the rehabilitation of the former Soviet Union and our dicking around in the Balkans just a few short years later. The upper levels of the American presidency are such a game of musical chairs that it's hard to consistently get things right.

no, it's more like this
> tanks, bombers
> loyalty+discipline
> property laws and inheritance
> books and movies that contribute to unit cohesion
> news that informs and unifies
> factories that make goods and hardware
> services and functional financial system that lets you grow your nation
> international allies and credibility
> good elections and proper representation
> good laws and even-handed enforcement
> aircraft carriers
> farms and markets
> the constitution

>dude just blow the fuck out of everything lmao
>a few people keep surviving and coming back for revenge in a few years even as we pour absurd amounts of capital into the fighting

oof

No one was expecting Al Qaeda, at least to the degree of their effectiveness. Remember at the start of the Iraq war Al Qaeda was only a single small desert camp. No one was expecting Al Qaeda to suicide bomb both the Sunni and Shia populations creating sectarian violence never before seen in iraq. In addition to attacking US and Iraqi forces. Al Qaeda also created a professional logistical network rarely seen in an middle eastern insurgency. Hell, Al Qaeda probably had better logistics at the time then the Iraq army.

Off topic here, but I'm surprised Jow Forums. You fuckers actually have proper knowledge of foreign relations and how the government works (the "blow all the things" guy excluded). I love politics, especially on the international level, and a lot of the replies ITT are very lucid and informed. It's been a long time since I set foot in this board, but I was expecting the same level of knowledge of those retarded Jow Forumsacks

>a few people keep surviving
So why exactly did you let a few people survive?

i'm trying hard to read it but i need a hamburger before i start to think clearly
> does something in africa prove anything about international warfighting and the best way to find victory?
> it looks like the war ended when the US showed up and started ruining everything
> i don't see anything that suggests the targeting of civilians contributed in a significant way to the successful conclusion of hostilities

>US Troops dicking around in a bazaar get blown up
>demand that Grandma produce information
>Habibi cannot produce information
>demand that she become a one-grandma intelligence service or die horribly

This assumption that you can somehow get locals to produce actionable intelligence would make sense in a conventional war, since the Shepard would have a pretty good idea of where an armored column is. You can't get that kind of quality info when it's a bunch of 20somethings rigging up IEDs in the back of some electronics store or rock farmers masturbating in the mountains. Putting the burden on the average civilian when you've already invaded their country and blown up their apartment isn't just unreasonable, it's insane.

We can agree on one thing though, invasions conducted for stupid reasons are doomed to fail. You cannot wage a fly-by-night counterinsurgency though. The only successful ones involved far more invaders than insurgents and much more time than we're willing to give up.

>the other thing you can try is ruining their propaganda machine by not being an absolute tool
That won't work, they'll just lie and claim you're a tool anyway.

Like this:
marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/FMFRP 12-15 Small Wars Manual.pdf

Attached: USMC Small Wars Manual 1940 COIN Field Manual.jpg (220x343, 22K)

k has always been miles smarter than pol, which is why i get pissed when i see those faggots claiming to be one board

what's the point?
you drop the nukes, there's nothing left to rule over.
the oilfields will give you cancer by sundown, the gold mines are rigged to kill everybody you send.
you've become anathema in the international community and nobody will do business with you or help if you get invaded.

your own citizens have turned against you.
will you glass your own cities now?

>No one was expecting Al Qaeda to suicide bomb both the Sunni and Shia populations creating sectarian violence never before seen in iraq. In addition to attacking US and Iraqi forces. Al Qaeda also created a professional logistical network rarely seen in an middle eastern insurgency. Hell, Al Qaeda probably had better logistics at the time then the Iraq army.
You got a point there. Some people knew it would be a hard endeavor before the war was launched, but you're right about Al Qaeda being fucking unpredictable. Hell, the founder of ISIS didn't manage to strike a deal with bin Laden due to Sunni and Shia differences, no one could've predicted they'd bomb both sides

DE-fuggn-BATABLE
>In no cases did they just get so sad and scared that they gave up
The Confederate military and a good portion of politicians had plenty of desire to continue the war but the civilian population was unsettled by the brutality of war when Sherman came knocking and burning everything in his path.Coupled with the complete blockade to starve them out it was the capitulation of the masses before the military gave up. The Klan was a political tool not an insurgency and thats because no one wanted to relive the horrors of war anymore.

You've seen how "humanitarian aid" is allowed in and almost immediately gets ransacked by the insurgents in Syria and Afghan.

Germany was exhausted in manpower and started throwing kids and elderly into the fray with easily producible weapons. They had the means to carry the wars on for at least two more years in both cases but the civilians were being bombed and burnt out of their homes to the point where they realized the war wasn't some far away fight between soldiers alone. The SS would have carried on an insurgency if that had been the case.

You think the Taliban and AQ care that they dont have enough ready made weapons? The armed them with whatever they can and fight because they know they can win against an enemy whos unwilling to fully commit to war like they are.

The Survivors will turn on their neighbors for food thats when you know you've won. "A prince can survive being hated, but injured enemies who are not killed outright will be his nemesis for life."

Wipe out the enclaves of support and reward the villages that fully support you, its that simple.

>war is a political and economic issue before it's about tanks and guns.

I agree with you on that one, but by the time it becomes military oriented its time to drop the act like we can all be friends bs and get your hands dirty.

Attached: 1530580935125.jpg (540x540, 61K)

you're wrong.
a canny statesmen or general can make a big difference in the way you are perceived.
reputation is a real thing

Its not as if its on purpose

youtube.com/watch?v=RGrqH11Dq4U

Excerpt(s):

1—5. Phases of small wars.—a. Small wars seldom develop in
accordance with any stereotyped procedure. Certain phases of those
listed below may be absent in one situation; in another they may be
combined and undertaken simultaneously; in still others one may fina
that the sequence of events or phases may be altered.
The actual operations of small wars may be arbitrarily divided into
five phases as follows:
Phase 1. InitIal demonstration orianding and action of vanguard.
Phase 2. The arrival of reenforcements and general military operations In
the field.
Phase 3. AssumptIon of control of executive agencies, and cooperation with
the legislative and judicial agencies.
Phase 4. Routine police functions.
Phase 5. WIthdrawal from the Theater of Operations.
b. First pliase.—Initial demonstration or landing and action of vanguard.
(1) One of the most common characteristics of the small wars of the
Cnited States is that its forces "dribble in" to the countries in which
they intervene. This is quite natural in view of the national policy of
the gpvernment. It is not at war with the neighboring state; it proposes no aggression or seizure of territory; its purpose is friendly and
it wishes to accomplish its objectives with as little military display
as possible with a view to gaining the lasting friendship of the inhabitants

With another guerrilla

(The copy paste is kinda bad due to it being made in 1940)
GENERAL CHAIIAC'TERISTICS
tants of the country. Thus our Government is observed endeavoring
to accomplish its end with the minimum of troops, in fact, with nothing
more than a deinonstrat ion of force if that is all that. is necessary and
reasonably sufficient. This policy is carried on throughout, the cantpgn and reenforcements are added by "driblets," so many companies
or a battalion, or a regiment at a time, until the force is large enough
to accomplish its miSSlOfl or until its its peacetime limitations in personiiel have been reached. Even after landing, instructions probably vilI
be received not to exert any physical force unless it l)ecornes absolutely
necessary, and then only to the minimum necessary to accomplish its
purpose. Thus orders may be received not to fire on irregulars unless
fired upon; instructions may be issued not to fire upon irregular groups
if women are present. with them even though it is known that. armed
women accompany ti me irregulars

(2) During the initial 1)ltase small numbers of troops may be sent
ashore to assume the initiative, as a demonstration to indicate a determination to control the situation, and to prepare the way for any
troops to follow. This vanguard is generally composed of marine
detachments or mixed forces of marines and sailors from ships at the
critical points. Owing to its limited personnel the. action of the
vanguard will often be restricted to an active defense after seizing a
critical area such as an important seaport or other city, the capital of
a country or disturbed areas of limited extent.
c. Second phase.—Time arrival of reenforcements and general military operations in the field.
During this period the theater of operations is divided into areas
and forces are assigned for each. Such forces should be sufficiently
strong t.o seize and hold the most important city in the area assigned
and to be able to send combat patrols in all directioims. If certain
neutral zones have not. been designated in the first phase, it may be
done at this time if deemed advisable. During this phase the organization of a native military and police force is undertaken. In order
to release ships' personnel to their normal functions afloat, such personnel are returned to their ships as soon as they can be relieved by
troops of the expeditionary force.
d. Third phase.—Assumpt.ion of control of executive agencies, and
cooperation with the legislative and judicial agencies.
If the measures in phase 2 do not bring decisive results, it may be
necessary. to resort to more thorough measures. This may involve the
establishment of military government or martial law in varying degree from minor authority to complete control of the principal Regime

A couple of us still know our shit. I've been working as an archivist and research assistant on this subject over the past two years, I know a couple of other undergraduate / grad students who keep their power level under wraps but are clearly Jow Forums posters.

The proportion of people with stuff to share beyond Jow Forums memes dwindles every year though. Kinda sad to see. Browsing Jow Forums as a kid is what really launched my interest in this field.

Yes, but the effectiveness of the claim would be reduced. Look at what North Korea throws at the US and see how many people actually believe that shit. Now look at the propaganda against either Russia or the US in terrorist infested regions. People might not buy it 100%, but due to how America handled itself in Iraq and how Putin handled Chechnya a whole lot of people all around the world will react with "yeah they kinda fucked up on that one"

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
cies of the. native government; it will involve the further strengthening of our forces by reenforcements. More detachments will be sent
out to take other important localities; more active and thorough
patrolling will be undertaken; measures will be taken to intercept the
vital supply and support channels of the opposing factions and to
break the resistance to law and order by a combination of effort of
physical and moral means. During this period the marines carry the
burden of most of the patrolling. Native troops, supported by marines, are increasingly employed as early as practicable in order that
these native agencies may assume their proper responsibility for restoring law and order in their own country as an agency of their government..
e. Fourth phae.—Routine police functions. (1) After continued
pressure of the measures in phase three, it is presumed that sooner or
later regular forces will subdue the lawless elements. Military police.
functions and judicial authority, to the extent that they have been
assumed by our military forces, are gradually returned to the native
agencies to which they properly belong.

(2) Our military forces must not. assume any judicial responsibility
over local inhabitants beyond that expressly provided by proper authority. The judicial powers of commanders of detached posts must
he clearly defined in orders from superior authority. Furthermore, as
long as the judicial authority rests squarely upon the shoulders of the
civil authorities, the military forces should continually impress and
indoctrinate them with their responsibility while educating the people
in this respect. Each situation presents certain characteristics peculiar to itself; in one instance officers were clothed with almost unlimited military authority within the law and our treaty rights; in
another, less authority was exercised over the population; and in the
third instance the forces of occupation had absolutely no judicial authority. The absence of such authority is often a decided handicap to
forces of occupation in the discharge of their responsibilities. If the
local judicial system is weak, or broken down entirely, it is better to
endow the military authorities with temporary and legal judicial
powers in order to avoid embarrassing situations which may result.
from illegal assumption.

>You've seen how "humanitarian aid" is allowed in and almost immediately gets ransacked by the insurgents in Syria and Afghan.
WHY?
because it FUCKING RUINS THEIR STORY
nothing hurts a propaganda machine faster than the 'enemy' doing things that honestly don't suck

>civil war
the war wasn't fought over slavery.
the war was not fought because they wanted "state rights"
the war was fought because the economic situation was deteriorating.
Slavery wasn't holding up because the planters burned up all the land growing the same thing three crops per year.

The way of life was dying and the south was failing to adapt economically and culturally.
That's why they fought, but it's also why they lost.
The yankees with their boats full of immigrants, factories, control of the west and train-based logistics had all the power all the time.

The brave johnny reb and their early victories didn't change the fact that they fought because the war was already lost.
Sherman could have let every single one of those civilians live and nothing would have changed.

> the Taliban ... armed them[selves] ... and fight because they know they can win against an enemy who's unwilling to fully commit
twenty years in, the problem isn't our commitment.
it's our engagement.

Were you ever a soldier?
In basic training, they do a lot of group punishment and begging you to rat on your buddies.
It doesn't work. You're still getting smoked.

But if you rat, after the DS goes home, everybody is going to remember what type of buddy you are -- a 'blue falcon'

that doesn't go away

Lol this, so many fucking idiots in this thread.
>let's do total war against an insurgency, cause it's worked so well for every empire that has ever tried it.
>wartime economy to fight literal rice farms
>trillions in debt to fight some goat herders
>tax payers realize how retarded this is and dissent against your own gov.
>insurgency cost almost nothing to the fighters.
>every civilian you kill they get 10 recruits, they dont even have to pay them and they gladly give their lives cause they have nothing to lose cause you destroyed everything.
>your own soldier who seriously dont give a fuck about the war anymore, and just want to make it through their 4th tour dont even really try anymore and have lost all morale
>they make their bombs out of your own garbage and manure
>this is literally what makes guerrilla warfare work

(3) During this phase the marines act as a reserve in supportof the
native forces and are actively employed only in grave emergencies.
The marines are successively withdrawn to the larger centers, thus
affording a better means for caring for the health, comfort, and recreation of the command.
7
210—705 0 — 88 — 2 01. 3
SWM 1—6
GENERAL CHAIACTERIST!CS
f. Fifth pha8e.—Withdrawal from the. theater of operations.
Finally, when order is restored, or when the responsible native agencies
are prepared to handle the situation without other support, the troops
are withdrawn upon orders from higher authority. This process is
progressive from the back country or interior outward, in the reverse
order to the entry into the country. After evacuation of the forces of
intervention, a Legation Guard, which assumes the usual functions
of such a detachment, may be left. in the capital.

Annnd done

Attached: perpetual_warfare.jpg (5000x3352, 3.75M)

>i'm trying hard to read it but i need a hamburger before i start to think clearly

LUL

> does something in africa prove anything about international warfighting and the best way to find victory?

Double LUL, its in southeast Asia ya dingus

> it looks like the war ended when the US showed up and started ruining everything
The moral of the story is US is a bitch to ignore and they constantly pull the white savior trope in places they don't belong.

> i don't see anything that suggests the targeting of civilians contributed in a significant way to the successful conclusion of hostilities

Complete and utter massacres of Tamil supporting enclaves who they knew were protecting the rebels along with numerous "human rights violations" where they openly "interrogated with force" killed any suspected insurgent and enforced what basically amounts to martial law forever.

Its not the most professional way to do things and any civilized nation can do much better with much less bloodshed but its proof of concept

Attached: 1508627001982.jpg (750x995, 74K)

holy shit i need that burger worse than i thought.

peace

nigga put that shit in 1 image macro
that's a lot of clutter in this thread for no good reason

scorched earth

I feel you, my thesis on university was about discourse and politics regarding a certain right wing candidate from my country. I own a big part of my interest in and study of politics and conflicts to this board. Seeing it overrun with fox news level of knowledge is pretty sad