Guerrilla warfare is a way to fight a war when you are hopelessly outgunned but have the people on your side.
In a guerrilla war there is no front, there are no grand battles. Instead you have hit and run fighting where cells of guerrilla fighters appear out of nowhere, fight for a short time and then melt away into the country or city among the people, never to be found. A guerrilla army is everywhere and nowhere.
The battle is not for land or position but for the “hearts and minds” of the people. It is about wearing out the patience of your enemy. Mao said it is like small flies constantly biting a giant. They do not kill the giant, but in time they drive him away.
Guerrilla warfare has been used to effect in China, Algeria, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan and Lebanon and many other places. It has failed in Greece, the Philippines and British Malaya.
Fighting against a guerrilla army is called counter-insurgency.
Guerrilla warfare works well against the army of a foreign power or a hated government. But, since there are no great battles, it takes time and great patience. For the enemy, it makes the war seem endless while it loses more and more men for no apparent gain. That is the trick.
Some guerrilla leaders, like Mao and Ho Chi Minh, use this time to create and train a regular army to deliver the crushing blows to end the war.
Some guerrilla armies use terror as a weapon. But this can backfire if it means losing the favour of the people, as it did in Greece after the Second World War.
How guerrilla warfare works:
When we think of an army, we think of soldiers with guns fighting in battle. But in a regular army only a small part is doing the fighting. Most of the army is not fighting but holding position, moving supplies, making repairs, cooking meals, gathering intelligence and so on. All the things it takes to support the fighting edge.
So if you face an army of 80,000 men, maybe only 10,000 are doing any fighting.
In a guerrilla army the numbers are way different. First, there is no reason to hold position — the war has no front, it is not about gaining or losing ground. Second, most of the support work that goes on behind the scenes is done by the people, by those hearts and minds that you have won. They supply your army. They make it easy for you to move your men and keep the enemy in the dark.
That means a guerrilla army can be much smaller. To fight a regular army of 80,000 men, you need maybe 5000 men at most.
That is why Hezbollah was able to defeat Israel with just a few thousand men while Syria, Egypt and Jordan, with much larger armies, failed. On the other hand, it took Hezbollah not six days but 18 years. Time and patience are everything. Something most democracies do not seem to possess.
See also:
- Mao’s Little Red Book – better than his “On Guerrilla Warfare”
- The British fight against the Communist guerrillas of Malaya – a good case study of how a Western power can defeat guerrillas (quite unlike the Americans in Vietnam).
- Hezbollah
- Israel
- democracies
- The war in Lebanon
- banana republic
- The Baghdad Surge – an example of American counter-insurgency
- Afghanistan
You’re right. Democracies are not good for fighting guerilla wars. We are too civil.
LikeLike
In the 1960s and early 70s, America (under Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon) fought the guerillas of Vietnam (known as Viet Cong) for a top position in the poppy (heroin) drug trade. The Vietnam War was actually a drug war. Many American soldiers were killed in this infamous drug war. Unfortunately, this drug war affected many Black and poor white communities across the nation. New York and other east coast states were hit hard by America’s heroin importation and dealing.
In the 1980s, America (under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) sided with the guerillas of Nicaragua (known as Contras) to subdue the Nicaraguan government. America financed the Nicaraguan “war” by selling weapons to the Contras for cocaine. Unfortunately, Black America were victimized by America’s cocaine importation and dealing.
LikeLike
The dutch were defeated, in Brazil, by guerrilla warfare in the XVII century. It was a very important moment for the formation of brazilian identity, since until then we were portuguese living outside Europe, and after that we were a nation of mixed europeans, africans and americans
https://m.historiadomundo.com.br/curiosidades/guerra-brasilica.htm
LikeLike
I see this is an old piece but I think it has become uncomfortably relevant today.
I’m reminded of what David Chapelle mentioned in 8:46, asymmetrical warfare.
The two police officers shot randomly in L.A. recently is an example of that kind of warfare.
This piece is witten by a game theorist and covers four civil war senerios in the U.S.
I’m currently leaning towards senerio #3, a contested election.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike