How do you successfully root out insurgents?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I suppose it also fixes the problem of "you're just creating more insurgents" if your plan is just to kill everyone

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        That worked for the Mongols but they fricked up and left survivors.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Round up all of the local population and start raping and then murdering them.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, they aren't even human at that point, so it would be just pest control.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I suppose it also fixes the problem of "you're just creating more insurgents" if your plan is just to kill everyone

      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.

      Did it work?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It was fun time

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          It also started the slow decline of the empire

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not really, in Belarus in WW2 it just pushed more peasants to become partisans

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        They made him stop

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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 frick off innawoods and become insurgents.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Simple, torture and pillage

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    convert them to your side

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >OPpic
    WW2 Prigozhin

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The soviets had plenty of Prigozhins during ww2 of their own already.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    or give them an enemy much worse than you

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's expensive. Bombs are cheap. Just fricking level anything that God didn't build, and frick it, blow up the forests and mountains too, just in case.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      This didn't work in Afghanistan

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Did the Americans even do that? Afghanistan was.. Just kinda poor and fricked up and it wasnt even a problem of money, the goddamn, wahtchacallit, provisional government of Afghanistan or whatever was just so fricking corrupt and shitty that only American money was propping it up. You saw the goddamn threads. Like, the literal instant America left it collapsed.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          We spent $2.313 trillion in Afghanistan

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            and a fat lot of good it clearly did you.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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 spicy 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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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 frickhead.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Another thread where morons 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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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 israelites 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 fricked as bad as they did.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    You pacify an insurgency by pacifying the people, that means time money and political maneuvering.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    GOTTA RAPE FAST

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not with this guy. really only served to increase violent partisans.

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Relocate the local population to a controlled environment, something called a concentration camp.

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Has anyone bothered to try asking politely?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *