'Smart' rebels outstrip US

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Let's see. The "Coalition of the willing" and the Iraqi Army have a force of about 500,000 troops, the only military planes in Iraq, overwhelming artillery, all the gadgets that the "defense" industry can sell them, and unlimited resources.

The "insurgents" have a few tens of thousands of lightly armed fighters...and they're winning.

Yup. Makes all kinds of sense.

"The guerrilla is like a fish that swims in the sea of the people." Mao Tse Tung


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2031172,00.html

In a bleak analysis, senior officers described the fighters they were facing in Iraq and Afghanistan 'as smart, agile and cunning'.

In Vietnam, the US was eventually defeated by a well-armed, closely directed and highly militarised society that had tanks, armoured vehicles and sources of both military production and outside procurement. What is more devastating now is that the world's only superpower is in danger of being driven back by a few tens of thousands of lightly armed irregulars, who have developed tactics capable of destroying multimillion-dollar vehicles and aircraft.

By contrast, the US military is said to have been slow to respond to the challenges of fighting an insurgency. The senior officers described the insurgents as being able to adapt rapidly to exploit American rules of engagement and turn them against US forces, and quickly disseminate ways of destroying or disabling armoured vehicles. The military is also hampered in its attempts to break up insurgent groups because of their 'flat' command structure within collaborative networks of small groups, making it difficult to target any hierarchy within the insurgency.

The remarks were made by senior US generals speaking at the Association of the US Army meeting at Fort Lauderdale in Florida and in conversations with The Observer. The generals view the 'war on terror' as the most important test of America's soldiers in 50 years.

'Iraq and Afghanistan are sucking up resources at a faster rate than we planned for,' one three-star general said. 'America's warriors need the latest technology to defeat an enemy who is smart, agile and cunning - things we did not expect of the Soviets.'

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Wha??

"In Vietnam, the US was eventually defeated by a well-armed, closely directed and highly militarised society that had tanks, armoured vehicles and sources of both military production and outside procurement."

When did the NVA ever defeat the US in direct combat, tank for tank, battalion for battalion? We were not defeated by "tanks, armoured vehicles and sources of both military production and outside procurement" -- we were defeated by the same unending guerilla tactics that we're facing today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those guerillas were supported and to a great extent supplied by North Vietnam, and there were NVA in the field, but in the end it was the war of attrition that we lost when everytime we bombed a village we created two guerillas for every one we killed.

Other than the Brits in Malaysia, has a colonial power EVER defeated an insurgency by military means?

[Zodiak]

2. Thesee comments sound like letters sent to England

by Cornwallis.

Organized armies cannot defeat a popular insurgency. Duh!