Well, technically, we haven't really uh, seen that happen in modern warfare yet, but the Brits did something similar in the Boer war where the rounded up everyone who could have been helping the insurgents (I.E. Everyone) and sticking them in prison camps. No support network and population to blend in = no insurgency, and the Brits won.
They don't let you do that anymore, though.
We did that in the Philippines too but it was like....reverse concentration camps where it's everywhere outside of the camp that was more dangerous to be in.
Unsurprisingly, no.
When you had about equal chance of being killed for being a civilian as for being an insurgent, it just pushed everyone to fuck off innawoods and become insurgents.
I dpont lnpw jh, er, sorry, but tispy I'll trey that again.
I don't know who that is, but I wanna get a bit patrotic for a moment. I think , beisdes the Big Three, Hungary contributed the most to the Axis war effort and it's a shame we lost.
Drop the government, build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, jobs. Provide aid so nobody has to survive long enough to get water, food or shelter, turn local population against insurgents.
If they have no reason to be insurgents, they won't be insurgents.
Trying to kill all insurgents is only possible if you genocide almost everyone. Every atrocity you commit spawns more insurgents.
That's expensive. Bombs are cheap. Just fucking level anything that God didn't build, and fuck it, blow up the forests and mountains too, just in case.
Did the Americans even do that? Afghanistan was.. Just kinda poor and fucked up and it wasnt even a problem of money, the goddamn, wahtchacallit, provisional government of Afghanistan or whatever was just so fucking corrupt and shitty that only American money was propping it up. You saw the goddamn threads. Like, the literal instant America left it collapsed.
Afghanistan has the unique honor of being Afghanistan. A large, tribal society with no history of strong central government that is more likely to violently revolt than pay taxes. Every modern central government has either been corrupt, incompetent, or the Hispanicy one, corrupt AND incompetent.
I honestly do not know why we bothered. Now its even worse than it was before, the Taliban are more interested in having sex with goats and committing random acts of terrorism than trying to stop everyone from starving to death.
Anyway, I don't think the takeaway is that building infrastructure and helping a country establish itself is bad, I think the takeaway is that tribal societies are unfit to be governed by secular democracy, because the result will just be tribal style votes-for-handouts scratch-my-back corruption (Greece) or violence.
All the food, medicine and money in the world will mean nothing if those fighting are ideologically motivated. Whatever their ideology is will continue to garner support if the locals agree with it.. And in fact all that aid and comfort you give out will create recruits for the partisans as much as you killing them will.. Because they will say you are murdering their souls with your efforts to corrupt them. It's best just to leave people alone and defeat them with better business and trade practices.. But if you corner them even with that, they'll come at you yet again.. Basically avoid being a fuckhead.
Bullshit. It has never worked that way. US foreign policy is literally an exercise in ignorance as shown in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
The only way to actively defeat an insurgency is to empower local powers that are aligned with you and leave them to it, offering military support as a defensive measure so they can over extend (and inadvertedly boosting their economy as your guys spend money in their settlements) and then just allowing them to function as allies economically and diplomatically.
Even China has yet to realise this in Africa and thinks the nigs are actively allies past the modicum of lip service they give while getting riled up because Uncle Xi is strip mining their resources in return for what you are claiming works, such as logistics, infrastructure and so forth.
You have to make the local populace WANT the stuff you can teach them and let them build it themselves or they'll just ditch it as soon as it becomes a nuisance hence why most nations, despite being shown the effectiveness of "basic" infrastructure like wells and roads, just give up on that shit because it has no immediate returns.
Another thread where retards with a middle-school tier concept of war and geopolitics thinks the US could overtly genocide half a country without absolutely destroying its reputation with any allies it has and destroying public opinion of the Military and government.
Half of the reason we lost Vietnam was public opinion turned against the war. Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t popular but people didn’t see troops as baby killers and weren’t openly rooting for the enemy. Beyond civilians your average serviceman isn’t some demon who wants to murder civilians (no, vetbros and edgy 18yo’s aren’t the majority) and commit genocide. Most just join for the education, benefits, patriotic idealism or adventure, these guy aren’t going to want to round up a village and gun them down SS style. It’s hard enough to find recruits as is, no one is going to join outside of legit sociopaths in this scenario.
Decimation via incarceration in military ran camps with zero tolerance.
Which is how the US, the Nazis and Bongs all did did it and why there was no real insurgency in WW2 despite the UK having its own fascists who were Hitler friendly, the US had a west coast Jap populace and the Nazis had the garden gnomes literally "declare war" via news media prior to the mid 1930s.
The issue is how the camps are treated and if you lose the war tho due to the nature of camps requiring mass deliveries of supplies like prisons so if you are on the losing side, you generally cut supplies to the dissidents and their kin first hence why German concentration camps got fucked as bad as they did.
Insurgencies are political conflicts which are now violent. Solve the political problem and you solve the insurgency. Very rarely are insurgencies defeated solely via military means, the political angle is much more important for insurgents than inter state conflicts.
Well, considering you're posting Uncle Oskar, I'd say just kill everyone you come across. You're bound to get a few insurgents doin' that.
I suppose it also fixes the problem of "you're just creating more insurgents" if your plan is just to kill everyone
That worked for the Mongols but they fucked up and left survivors.
Round up all of the local population and start raping and then murdering them.
Actually, they aren't even human at that point, so it would be just pest control.
Did it work?
It was fun time
Well, technically, we haven't really uh, seen that happen in modern warfare yet, but the Brits did something similar in the Boer war where the rounded up everyone who could have been helping the insurgents (I.E. Everyone) and sticking them in prison camps. No support network and population to blend in = no insurgency, and the Brits won.
They don't let you do that anymore, though.
We did that in the Philippines too but it was like....reverse concentration camps where it's everywhere outside of the camp that was more dangerous to be in.
It also started the slow decline of the empire
Not really, in Belarus in WW2 it just pushed more peasants to become partisans
They made him stop
>Did it work?
Unsurprisingly, no.
When you had about equal chance of being killed for being a civilian as for being an insurgent, it just pushed everyone to fuck off innawoods and become insurgents.
Simple, torture and pillage
convert them to your side
>OPpic
WW2 Prigozhin
I dpont lnpw jh, er, sorry, but tispy I'll trey that again.
I don't know who that is, but I wanna get a bit patrotic for a moment. I think , beisdes the Big Three, Hungary contributed the most to the Axis war effort and it's a shame we lost.
The soviets had plenty of Prigozhins during ww2 of their own already.
or give them an enemy much worse than you
Drop the government, build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, jobs. Provide aid so nobody has to survive long enough to get water, food or shelter, turn local population against insurgents.
If they have no reason to be insurgents, they won't be insurgents.
Trying to kill all insurgents is only possible if you genocide almost everyone. Every atrocity you commit spawns more insurgents.
That's expensive. Bombs are cheap. Just fucking level anything that God didn't build, and fuck it, blow up the forests and mountains too, just in case.
This didn't work in Afghanistan
Did the Americans even do that? Afghanistan was.. Just kinda poor and fucked up and it wasnt even a problem of money, the goddamn, wahtchacallit, provisional government of Afghanistan or whatever was just so fucking corrupt and shitty that only American money was propping it up. You saw the goddamn threads. Like, the literal instant America left it collapsed.
We spent $2.313 trillion in Afghanistan
and a fat lot of good it clearly did you.
Afghanistan has the unique honor of being Afghanistan. A large, tribal society with no history of strong central government that is more likely to violently revolt than pay taxes. Every modern central government has either been corrupt, incompetent, or the Hispanicy one, corrupt AND incompetent.
I honestly do not know why we bothered. Now its even worse than it was before, the Taliban are more interested in having sex with goats and committing random acts of terrorism than trying to stop everyone from starving to death.
Anyway, I don't think the takeaway is that building infrastructure and helping a country establish itself is bad, I think the takeaway is that tribal societies are unfit to be governed by secular democracy, because the result will just be tribal style votes-for-handouts scratch-my-back corruption (Greece) or violence.
All the food, medicine and money in the world will mean nothing if those fighting are ideologically motivated. Whatever their ideology is will continue to garner support if the locals agree with it.. And in fact all that aid and comfort you give out will create recruits for the partisans as much as you killing them will.. Because they will say you are murdering their souls with your efforts to corrupt them. It's best just to leave people alone and defeat them with better business and trade practices.. But if you corner them even with that, they'll come at you yet again.. Basically avoid being a fuckhead.
Bullshit. It has never worked that way. US foreign policy is literally an exercise in ignorance as shown in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
The only way to actively defeat an insurgency is to empower local powers that are aligned with you and leave them to it, offering military support as a defensive measure so they can over extend (and inadvertedly boosting their economy as your guys spend money in their settlements) and then just allowing them to function as allies economically and diplomatically.
Even China has yet to realise this in Africa and thinks the nigs are actively allies past the modicum of lip service they give while getting riled up because Uncle Xi is strip mining their resources in return for what you are claiming works, such as logistics, infrastructure and so forth.
You have to make the local populace WANT the stuff you can teach them and let them build it themselves or they'll just ditch it as soon as it becomes a nuisance hence why most nations, despite being shown the effectiveness of "basic" infrastructure like wells and roads, just give up on that shit because it has no immediate returns.
Another thread where retards with a middle-school tier concept of war and geopolitics thinks the US could overtly genocide half a country without absolutely destroying its reputation with any allies it has and destroying public opinion of the Military and government.
>this
Half of the reason we lost Vietnam was public opinion turned against the war. Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t popular but people didn’t see troops as baby killers and weren’t openly rooting for the enemy. Beyond civilians your average serviceman isn’t some demon who wants to murder civilians (no, vetbros and edgy 18yo’s aren’t the majority) and commit genocide. Most just join for the education, benefits, patriotic idealism or adventure, these guy aren’t going to want to round up a village and gun them down SS style. It’s hard enough to find recruits as is, no one is going to join outside of legit sociopaths in this scenario.
Decimation via incarceration in military ran camps with zero tolerance.
Which is how the US, the Nazis and Bongs all did did it and why there was no real insurgency in WW2 despite the UK having its own fascists who were Hitler friendly, the US had a west coast Jap populace and the Nazis had the garden gnomes literally "declare war" via news media prior to the mid 1930s.
The issue is how the camps are treated and if you lose the war tho due to the nature of camps requiring mass deliveries of supplies like prisons so if you are on the losing side, you generally cut supplies to the dissidents and their kin first hence why German concentration camps got fucked as bad as they did.
Insurgencies are political conflicts which are now violent. Solve the political problem and you solve the insurgency. Very rarely are insurgencies defeated solely via military means, the political angle is much more important for insurgents than inter state conflicts.
You pacify an insurgency by pacifying the people, that means time money and political maneuvering.
GOTTA RAPE FAST
Not with this guy. really only served to increase violent partisans.
Relocate the local population to a controlled environment, something called a concentration camp.
Has anyone bothered to try asking politely?