When You’re Outnumbered: Lessons from Two British Masters of Irregular Warfare • Hacker News Board

Re: When You’re Outnumbered: Lessons from Two British Masters of Irregular Warfare

#61

Post by arminiusreturns » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 12:54 AM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #45

arminiusreturns wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Afganistan is probably the best example. It was never easy to govern, but after the US trained a guerilla resistance to the Soviet invasion it became impossible. Most of the Islamic fundamentalism that the USA is fighting today can be traced back to that one event. I disagree, but with some context. If you just go back to the cold war, you would be correct, but in a longer time-frame context, I would posit instead i…

As such other wonderful outposts of peace as northern ireland, cyprus, israel, etc. show, back when it was Britannia who ruled the waves, they were fond of playing "let's you and him fight". To my eyes, the long-term drawbacks of these initially-attractive conflicts probably support the ancestor's thesis. (any oceanic power will likely find making a mess of potential eurasian overland trade routes to be a feature, no…

Quite. Funnily enough, in older history, I find Venice at the center of similar intriques. Also interesting to me is some of the references to the 18th century England political class as the "Venetian party" (such as in Benjamin Disraeli's Sybil).

Dutch and British East India company history is something I really need to find a good book on.

Re: When You’re Outnumbered: Lessons from Two British Masters of Irregular Warfare

#62

Post by newdude116 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

PaulAJ wrote: post #2

Fascinating though this is, the negative long term impact of these guys tends to be much greater than their positive short-term impact. You go in, you train a bunch of locals as guerrillas, you achieve the objective, and then you get out, leaving the local guerrillas behind. These guys now have the knowledge, experience and organisation to make the place ungovernable. At least some of them will proceed to do so; eith…

"Afganistan is probably the best example. It was never easy to govern, but after the US trained a guerilla resistance to the Soviet invasion it became impossible."

No, the soviet had a simple rational.

1. Can we win the war? no

2. Can we stay forever? Yes

3. How much will it cost? Every year X Billion Rubles and X russian lifes.

The US has the same outcome.

I would also be careful label it a "soviet invasion".

"The Amin government, having secured a treaty in December 1978 that allowed them to call on Soviet forces, repeatedly requested the introduction of troops in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979. They requested Soviet troops to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujaheddin rebels. After the killing of Soviet technicians in Herat by rioting mobs, the Soviet government sold several Mi-24 helicopters to the Afghan military, and increased the number of military advisers in the country to 3,000.[137] On April 14, 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel A. Lomakin, arrived at the Bagram Air Base on July 7. They arrived without their combat gear, disguised as technical specialists. They were the personal bodyguards for General Secretary Taraki. The paratroopers were directly subordinate to the senior Soviet military advisor and did not interfere in Afghan politics. Several leading politicians at the time such as Alexei Kosygin and Andrei Gromyko were against intervention."

Re: When You’re Outnumbered: Lessons from Two British Masters of Irregular Warfare

#63

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 6:01 AM UTC

js2 wrote: post #37

jessaustin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume that most of us haven't read that book, or even if we have that we don't recall it perfectly. What specific information in it would lead us to agree with the blanket statement "this is just plain false"?

You can start with the US and Britain intervening in Iran in the the late 1940s to protect oil interests and work your way forward from there. You could arguably go back to post-WWI with Britain, France and Russia arguing over the remains of the Ottoman empire (Sykes–Picot Agreement). The last century has been one interference after the next by Western powers and Russia in the Middle East: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

OK, we all agree that USA's military-capitalism policy has been enacted in many places for many years. Thread parent's actual point, that this is very harmful to human people, seems confirmed rather than contradicted.