Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 326







Post#8126 at 04-29-2004 04:39 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-29-2004, 04:39 PM #8126
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
That was the Vietnam model, and is the emerging Iraqi model. All guerilla war is similar.
And it is a historical fact that, in most guerilla wars, the guerillas lose.

Good luck with your Vietnam comparisions, when 95% of Iraq is secure. It's like calling California a quagmire because of the LA riots.

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
If a terrorrist destroys a city with a suitcase bomb
That's why a big, important tactic of the WOT is to prevent terrorist-supporting nations from obtaining WMDs. As the Kay report indicates, Iraq was in negotiation for nuclear weapons as late as 2003. If Saddam was still there, he might have nukes from Pakistan by now.

As it is, Al Qaeda almost used a poison gas bomb to kill 20,000 people in Amman, Jordan recently, and they got the bomb from Iraq, via Syria.

So your fears of an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq, killing far fewer people per month than are killed on our highways, is put in perspective, eh?







Post#8127 at 04-29-2004 04:43 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
04-29-2004, 04:43 PM #8127
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
That was the Vietnam model, and is the emerging Iraqi model. All guerilla war is similar.
And it is a historical fact that, in most guerilla wars, the guerillas lose.

Good luck with your Vietnam comparisions, when 95% of Iraq is secure. It's like calling California a quagmire because of the LA riots.
Not really. Considering the population densities, California is the wrong place to pick. Your claim sounds a lot more like "99% of Alaska is secure with revolts taking place only in Juneau, Tok, North Pole, and parts of Anchorage". Obviously most of the barren wastes are under total US control .







Post#8128 at 04-29-2004 04:45 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-29-2004, 04:45 PM #8128
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Good luck with your Vietnam comparisions, when 95% of Iraq is secure.
Space-wise, maybe. Lots of barren desert there. The populated areas, now.... :?







Post#8129 at 04-29-2004 04:50 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-29-2004, 04:50 PM #8129
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

This USA Today article you linked to doesn't make a connection to Iraq for the bomb.







Post#8130 at 04-29-2004 04:51 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-29-2004, 04:51 PM #8130
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Not really. Considering the population densities, California is the wrong place to pick. Your claim sounds a lot more like "99% of Alaska is secure with revolts taking place only in Juneau, Tok, North Pole, and parts of Anchorage". Obviously most of the barren wastes are under total US control .
Roll your eyes at this, Justin-dude:

Iraq population: 24,683,313
Iraq area: 437,072 sq km

California population: 34,501,130
California area: 155,959 sq miles = 403,933.81 sq km

SLAM! That's gotta hurt.







Post#8131 at 04-29-2004 04:51 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
04-29-2004, 04:51 PM #8131
Guest

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by msm
Good luck with your Vietnam comparisions, when 95% of Iraq is secure.
Space-wise, maybe. Lots of barren desert there. The populated areas, now....
Hoping for America's defeat... is this an expression of love?







Post#8132 at 04-29-2004 04:53 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-29-2004, 04:53 PM #8132
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by msm
Good luck with your Vietnam comparisions, when 95% of Iraq is secure.
Space-wise, maybe. Lots of barren desert there. The populated areas, now....
Hoping for America's defeat... is this an expression of love?
Can I have some of what you're smoking, dude? 8)







Post#8133 at 04-29-2004 05:28 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-29-2004, 05:28 PM #8133
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Hi Witchiepoo! Hi Justin!







Post#8134 at 04-29-2004 05:43 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
04-29-2004, 05:43 PM #8134
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Roll your eyes at this, Justin-dude:

Iraq population: 24,683,313
Iraq area: 437,072 sq km

California population: 34,501,130
California area: 155,959 sq miles = 403,933.81 sq km

SLAM! That's gotta hurt.
Hurt who?
Iraq's population distribution

California population density

One might note that, whereas more than half the land area of Iraq is uninhabited, no part of California is. The point I made is that, while the numbers may look like California, the reality is more like Alaska (the only US state with a similar amount of uninhabited and 'barely inhabited' territory). Grow up.


(Hi Kiff! Been busy lately with the new job. Not so much time to post these days... :cry: )
___________________________

"Precisely because mass man does not recognize any sense of personal responsibility and does not care to distinguish between the intended and actual consequences of any action, he acquiesces in the control of all social efforts on the part of the state. Deceived into thinking that he is the state, mass man does not see that he will soon be living for the state (or the government), and not it for him." -- Nicholas Capaldi







Post#8135 at 04-29-2004 06:31 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
04-29-2004, 06:31 PM #8135
Guest

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by Witchiepoo
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Hoping for America's defeat... is this an expression of love?
Predicting and hoping are not the same thing.
Predicting quagmire and defeat, based on what premise? I could maybe understand that prediction for the GI leaders as they grayed in the sixties, but is this the uncompleted mission for America's new Gray Champion? Perhaps the poster could elaborate.







Post#8136 at 04-29-2004 11:18 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
04-29-2004, 11:18 PM #8136
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Today the talk is not of "quagmire and defeat", but "cut and run."

Bush administration under increasing fire for Iraq policy

BY WILLIAM DOUGLAS, JAMES KUHNHENN AND SUMANA CHATTERJEE
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - As the U.S. death toll in Iraq rises and the insurrection there widens, the Bush administration faced increased skepticism Thursday on Capitol Hill, in world capitals and among military experts about the viability and wisdom of its Iraq policy.

Lawmakers from both parties have become increasingly uneasy about the president's vague plans to hand over limited sovereignty to a still-unidentified Iraqi government on June 30. Also troubling them is that the U.S. military appears unable to quell the growing insurrection in Iraq; 10 more U.S. soldiers were killed there Thursday as Marines reached a tentative deal to pull back from the insurgents' stronghold in Fallujah and to turn security for the city over to a former general in Saddam Hussein's army.

These developments, on the eve of the first anniversary of President Bush's dramatic landing last May 1 on an aircraft carrier to proclaim "Mission Accomplished," coincide with an erosion of public support for his policy there. One new national poll found the public evenly split over whether U.S. forces should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to restore stability, or to withdraw as soon as possible. Another poll found that a large majority of Iraqis is unhappy with foreign "occupiers" in their country.

"We have already failed," retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "Staying in longer makes us fail worse ... I think we've passed the chances not to fail. And now we are in the situation where we have to limit the damage."

The troubles afflicting Bush's Iraq policy have emboldened Democrats and presidential candidate John Kerry, who's scheduled to give his third major speech on Iraq Friday at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo.

"In Iraq, failure is not an option," Kerry said during an appearance at the National Conference of Black Mayors Thursday in Philadelphia. "We know the mission is not accomplished - and it is time for a new plan."

Democratic Party discontent with the administration's Iraq policy intensified following an upbeat assessment of events there Tuesday by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, speaking to House Democrats.

"When I hear the president speak about the post-war period in Iraq, it's clear to me that this administration did not know what it was getting into. What I heard today just reinforces that idea," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday. "They have no idea how to get out of it."

On the Senate floor, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said: "The failures of post-war Iraq lay squarely on the Bush administration for recklessly sending this country to war. A war that should not have been fought. A war in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons."

Sen. Carl Levin, D.-Mich., put it this way: "The president lays down two alternatives, either cut and run or stay the course. That's a false choice. There is a third course: course corrections. Acknowledge where you made mistakes and correct the course because it is important that the world community succeed in Iraq."

White House officials dismiss such talk as partisan election-year talk from Democrats eager to paint Iraq as another Vietnam. But lately the administration has heard more dissenting Republican voices too, asking if it's realistic to return sovereignty 60 days from now to an Iraq that remains highly unstable.

The administration describes June 30 as the day that Iraqis gain sovereignty, but says that military decisions still would be left to the U.S.-led coalition forces, and Iraq's interim government would be not allowed to pass any laws.

"If a country doesn't have the sovereignty to make national security decisions for itself and military commitments, then I'm not sure I would define it as a sovereign government," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., observed this week.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wondered Thursday how power could be transferred under current chaotic conditions.

"I don't see how we will be successful in transferring power to a still ill-defined Iraqi entity if the country is still experiencing so much violence and instability," said Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

One U.S. military officer who's an expert in counterinsurgency and who recently returned from Iraq, is equally pessimistic.

"I came away thinking we are losing. I hadn't thought this on any previous trip to Iraq," said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it would be insubordination for him to challenge his civilian superiors. "My bet is that if we follow the prescription of a gradual but quick pullout, the Iraqi security forces that exist now would evaporate and be replaced by warring militias, which might be the inevitable outcome anyway."

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, offered the restrained observation Thursday that the administration hasn't completely thought through its Iraq policy. Lugar said that current planning "is not necessarily adequate, but it is occurring."

Earlier this week, Lugar was more pointed: "Even if the decisions are correct, the diplomacy is deficient. By that I simply mean that not many people agree with us, or like us, or are prepared to work with us," Lugar told reporters. "That really will have to change. It starts with the president ... ."

Some U.S. allies, while pleased by Bush's new willingness to let the United Nations help shape the next interim Iraqi government, nevertheless worry that the White House isn't willing to cede real power.

"There is no possible solution that would lead to the reconstruction of Iraq without a genuine transfer of sovereignty under the effective control of the United Nations," French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday in Paris. "What would be disastrous would be a compromise solution based on an ambiguity along the lines of: `Right, the United Nations, you go and stand up the front,' but in fact nothing has changed and the coalition is really still in charge."

The Iraq turmoil is taking a toll on Bush in polls. A New York Times/CBS News poll found that only 47 percent of Americans now think it was right to have invaded Iraq, down from 58 percent last month and 63 percent in December, while 46 percent said the United States should have stayed out. And the nation split 46-46 percent over whether to stay until stability is achieved or to exit quickly.

Iraqis increasingly resent the U.S.-led presence. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey of Iraqis conducted in late March and early April found that 71 percent of them view U.S. forces as "occupiers," not "liberators."

These developments could open an opportunity for Kerry to define his alternative leadership on Iraq more clearly. He last gave a major address on Iraq five months ago.

Kerry has said he would seek a U.N. resolution to hand over nation-building duties to the United Nations under a U.N. "high commissioner." He would seek another U.N. resolution to authorize a multinational force, composed greatly of U.S. troops, but also including Arab soldiers, to stabilize the country and train Iraqis in security measures.

Democratic strategists say Kerry needs to speak more about Iraq.

" He needs to be clear and offer a simple plan of what he would do differently," said Donna Brazile, who managed Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. "Over the next two or three weeks, as we come to the June 30th deadline, John Kerry has to make a remark about Iraq every day. That is what is on the minds of the American people."

"The issue is whether people are losing confidence in Bush's ability to manage the situation," said Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council staffer under President Clinton. "All Kerry has to do is convince the American public that he has a sense of how to get out of it."

Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Kerry is hemmed in politically.

"A lot of the Democratic base is incredibly angry about the war and Bush's policy," said Mead, author of the forthcoming book "Power, Terror, Peace and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk."

"Kerry courageously and correctly is sticking to the view that we're in the war and we can't get out. But what does he say to energize the base? If he doesn't distinguish himself enough from the president, Nader goes up in the polls. If he does too much, there's enough people to say, `Ah, the new McGovern.'"

---

(Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Tom Fitzgerald contributed to this report.)

---

---
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt







Post#8137 at 04-30-2004 10:36 AM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 10:36 AM #8137
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by cbailey
Today the talk is not of "quagmire and defeat", but "cut and run."
As it always happens, in every war.

Meanwhile, in the real world, two towns in Iraq are being brought under control, (with the citizens of Najaf attacking and killing the anti-coalition Iranian-supported followers of Sadr) and Bagdad has about as many bombings as Madrid.

We can only lose this in our heads.







Post#8138 at 04-30-2004 11:41 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-30-2004, 11:41 AM #8138
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

We can only lose this in our heads.
Correct. We can't win it, but we can avoid losing it by stubbornly pouring good lives and money after bad and taking casualties in Iraq from now until the Sun goes nova.

The insurgents can't actually defeat our forces militarily, so the only way they can win is if we wise up and cut our losses.

Either way, the outcome depends on our heads, specifically how dumb we are.







Post#8139 at 04-30-2004 12:02 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 12:02 PM #8139
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
We can only lose this in our heads.
Correct. We can't win it, but we can avoid losing it by stubbornly pouring good lives and money after bad and taking casualties in Iraq from now until the Sun goes nova.

The insurgents can't actually defeat our forces militarily, so the only way they can win is if we wise up and cut our losses.

Either way, the outcome depends on our heads, specifically how dumb we are.
Our choice is this: several dozen dead per year in Iraq for five years (not forever), or tens of thousands dead in a U.S. city in the future.

To bad we didn't get this over with in 1991. It would have been finished by Clinton's first term.

Iraq is now a central battleground in the WOT. The U.S. State Dept. now agrees (which is strange, considering that they have proven to be one of the institutions most needing a clue train, what with them being on the take from Sauid Arabia and all).







Post#8140 at 04-30-2004 12:03 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 12:03 PM #8140
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail. What makes you think this will be one of the rare exceptions?







Post#8141 at 04-30-2004 01:18 PM by Andy '85 [at Texas joined Aug 2003 #posts 1,465]
---
04-30-2004, 01:18 PM #8141
Join Date
Aug 2003
Location
Texas
Posts
1,465

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail. What makes you think this will be one of the rare exceptions?
Animosity towards the current administration I'd assume. I seriously doubt anyone in their right mind would wish some horrific failure on our forces, however, I do see the concept of failing (or at least not having a decisive victory) in a way that would cut losses but lose the face of our current administration.







Post#8142 at 04-30-2004 02:42 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
04-30-2004, 02:42 PM #8142
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail. What makes you think this will be one of the rare exceptions?
So cite me some of that guerilla history. But you better not include Vietnam or Korea.

What you don't seem to understand is that guerllia insurgents don't have to win outright; they simply win by not losing. But we, on the other hand, must win outright, because we lose by not winning.

One of the first rules of battle (please check me out on this, all you military experts) is not to let the enemy decide how you're going to fight. Didn't we win the Revolutionary War on that basis? Clearly the insurgents are deciding the terms of these battles. And I think they will win in the end.







Post#8143 at 04-30-2004 02:50 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 02:50 PM #8143
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail.
Historically, virtually all attempts to suppress guerrilla insurgencies have failed. In many cases, the insurgents achieve their military goals. Recent examples: Afghanistan, Algeria, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Vietnam, Congo.

The insurgencies only fail in the sense that they fail to achieve their (completely unrealistic) goals of political dominance; even then, most guerrila movements achieve at least some political legitimacy. Recent examples: FMLN, PLO, PUK, PKK, IRA.

And, of course, there's always the example of the Sons Of Liberty. :wink:







Post#8144 at 04-30-2004 03:25 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 03:25 PM #8144
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
Didn't we win the Revolutionary War on that basis?
No, we didn't. We were losing the war badly until France helped. After that, it was more of a conventional war.

The Revolutionary War, in fact, is another example of the general failure of guerilla tactics. I wasn't going to include it in my list, however; I was going to stick to 20th century guerilla wars, such as Peru, Algeria, the Phillipines, etc...







Post#8145 at 04-30-2004 03:26 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 03:26 PM #8145
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Quote Originally Posted by msm
Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail.
Historically, virtually all attempts to suppress guerrilla insurgencies have failed.
No, you're quite wrong. You don't know your history very well.







Post#8146 at 04-30-2004 03:38 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 03:38 PM #8146
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Here is a quick list of 20th century guerilla insurgencies

Conflict/Period/Victor
Greek Civil War/1944-49/Government
Spanish Insurgency/1944-52/Government
Chinese Civil War/1945-49/Insurgents
Vietnam War/1945-72/Insurgents
Iranian Communists/1945-46/Government
Philippine Huk War/1946-54/Government
Madagascar Revolt/1947-49/Government
Korean Partisan War/1948-53/Government
Malayan Emergency/1948-60/Government
Kenyan Mau-Maus/1952-55/Government
Cuban Revolution/1956-58/Insurgents
Sarawak-Sabah/1960-66/Government
Algeria-GSPC/1992-2003/Government







Post#8147 at 04-30-2004 03:40 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 03:40 PM #8147
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Oh, I forgot to include Peru on the list. That was another government victory.







Post#8148 at 04-30-2004 03:48 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 03:48 PM #8148
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
Clearly the insurgents are deciding the terms of these battles. And I think they will win in the end.
By the way, Croakmore, which insurgents are you talking about? The Al-Sadr army backed by Iran, or the Iraqi insurgency that is rising up against them? Or Al Qaeda setting off car bombs in Bagdhad? Do you think Al Qaeda will win in the end? Should we all just convert to Islam now, or go on with our infidel ways until a dirty bomb goes off in Chicago?

Mystery group wage war on Sadr's militia

FOR the past month they have been the rude young pretenders, a rag-tag slum army ruffling the quiet dignity of Iraq?s holiest city.

For every day that the United States army fails to act on its threat to crush them, the Shiite militiamen of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have grown in confidence in their stronghold in Najaf.

Now, however, a shadowy resistance movement within might be about to succeed where the 2,500 US marines outside the city have failed.


(Here, the word "failed" is being used to mean that the marines have surrounded the city, but are allowing the Iraqi authorities time to try to find a negotiated settlement to prevent civilian casualties.)


In a deadly expression of feelings that until now were kept quiet, a group representing local residents is said to have killed at least five militiamen in the last four days.

The murders are the first sign of organised Iraqi opposition to Sadr?s presence and come amid simmering discontent at the havoc their lawless presence has wreaked.


(Maybe they don't like Iranians meddling in their affairs...)


The group calls itself the Thulfiqar Army, after a twin-bladed sword said to be used by the Shiite martyr Imam Ali, to whom Najaf?s vast central mosque is dedicated.

Residents say leaflets bearing that name have been circulated in the city in the last week, urging Sadr?s al-Mahdi army to leave immediately or face imminent death.

"I haven?t seen the leaflets myself, but I heard about it when I was down there two days ago," said Ahmed Abbas, a carpenter from Najaf who visited Baghdad yesterday.

"It has got some of the Mahdi guys quite worried, I tell you. They are banding together more, when normally you would see them happily walking on the streets alone. I think their commanders have ordered them to do that."







Post#8149 at 04-30-2004 04:33 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 04:33 PM #8149
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Here is a quick list of 20th century guerilla insurgencies
I notice you conveniently omitted most of the groups I mentioned. I suppose it hinges on the definition of victory. I have no doubt that the US will find a definition of victory in Iraq that the mass media are willing to accept. Just look at Afghanistan for an example: the US "defeated" the Taliban, despite the fact that currently the nominal Afghan government controls little more than Kabul. Afghanistan is now responsible for 80% of the world's opium poppy production. Oh well, who cares -- "we won!"







Post#8150 at 04-30-2004 04:49 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
04-30-2004, 04:49 PM #8150
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Here is a quick list of 20th century guerilla insurgencies

Conflict/Period/Victor
Greek Civil War/1944-49/Government
Spanish Insurgency/1944-52/Government
Chinese Civil War/1945-49/Insurgents
Vietnam War/1945-72/Insurgents
Iranian Communists/1945-46/Government
Philippine Huk War/1946-54/Government
Madagascar Revolt/1947-49/Government
Korean Partisan War/1948-53/Government
Malayan Emergency/1948-60/Government
Kenyan Mau-Maus/1952-55/Government
Cuban Revolution/1956-58/Insurgents
Sarawak-Sabah/1960-66/Government
Algeria-GSPC/1992-2003/Government
Add:

Afghanistan-USSR/1979-1989?/Insurgents
Iran/1977-1979/Insurgents
Czechoslavakia/1968?/Government
Czechoslavakia, Poland, GDR, Romania, Baltic Republics/1989-1990/Insurgents
Bosnians, Croats, etc.. versus Serbia/1990-1999/Insurgents
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
-----------------------------------------