PDA

View Full Version : The De-Evolution of Warfare



thedrifter
06-10-03, 06:07 AM
06-09-2003

The De-Evolution of Warfare



By A. Scott Piraino



Conventional warfare is dead. More precisely, wars with national armies fighting across opposing lines will be the exception in the future, not the rule. Instead the twentieth century has seen the rise of guerrilla warfare and its vicious stepchild,

terrorism.



The Boer war was the first modern guerrilla war. In 1906, German settlers fought the British Empire for control of South Africa’s wealth. In a war of small battles and skirmishes, Boers used hit and run tactics to stalemate the British troops. The term “commando” was first used to describe these small units carrying out raids and ambushes.



The tactics of guerrilla warfare are simple. Modern automatic weapons and explosives make small groups of soldiers much more lethal. They can strike

quickly at occupying forces, then disappear into the native population. In a war against a hidden enemy, the occupying army becomes demoralized and withdraws.



Terrorism is a de-evolution of guerrilla warfare. Instead of targeting an occupying army, an entire population becomes the enemy. Using anything from makeshift bombs to weapons of mass destruction, small groups of fanatics can cause death and destruction far out of proportion to their numbers



We can argue the morality of this new warfare, but we cannot deny its effectiveness. Guerrillas have defeated the United States in Vietnam, and the Russians in

Afghanistan. A bombing campaign forced the French to withdraw from Algeria. After ten years of terrorist warfare the exhausted British have negotiated a peace settlement with the IRA.



Western Democracies have had few successes against this new form of warfare. Our troops are brave and skilled, but our generals and political leaders order the impossible. In theater after theater, they have sent armies to occupy hostile territory, then lacked the stomach to prosecute the war as viciously as the enemy.



Only repressive regimes can finally defeat guerrillas and terrorists. Since it is futile to fight an elusive enemy hiding in hostile country, the solution is to target the entire population. Ethnic cleansing has emerged as a cruel but efficient military strategy, but liberal governments hesitate to use this tactic.



Again, we can argue the morality of ethnic cleansing, but we cannot deny its effectiveness. This is the truth of the new war: It is no longer possible to conquer hostile territory without deporting or destroying the hostile population. This does not bode well for conflicts raging around the world today.



In Chechnya, the Russians are seeking to avenge their failed invasion of 1996, when the Red Army was humiliated by Chechen guerrillas. Unable to expel the Russian army with conventional forces, the Chechens have resorted to ambushes, raids and terrorist bombings in Russian cities. The Russians cannot win, but are unwilling to withdraw and admit defeat. They have resorted to scorched-earth tactics, in effect

ethnically cleansing the Chechen people.



Israel has been locked in an endless war of attrition with the Palestinians for over thirty years. Of course, Israelis cannot withdraw from the conflict without dissolving their country. So they endure uprisings, raids, and now suicide bombings from the

Palestinians who hate them. The bloodshed will continue unless both sides make a lasting peace, or one group is deported or destroyed.



Now that the United States has been drawn into a war on terror, we face the same military dilemma. In response to the September 11th attacks, the U.S. military immediately invaded Afghanistan. Operation Anaconda was a sweep of the mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, seeking the terrorists responsible for the attacks.



We have arrested many suspected terrorists, but we have certainly not destroyed Al Qaeda, or captured Osama Bin Laden. Yet the U.S. armed forces are still occupying Afghanistan. As of this writing, eighteen peacekeepers have been killed on duty in Afghanistan. Many more soldiers have been wounded, and have been the targets of terrorist attacks.



After 9/11, no one could deny our right to pursue the perpetrators of such murderous acts. But the Bush administration has given up the moral high ground with this reckless invasion of Iraq. Now in Addition to Afghanistan, 150,000 U.S. troops are committed to a hazardous occupation of Iraq.



The invasion of Iraq officially ended on May 1, 2003, but this has not brought an end to American casualties. 114 U.S. military personnel were killed in battle during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and another 24 died in accidents. Since the Pentagon declared the end of combat operations another 44 troops have died, including 12 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The Pentagon may have declared an end to combat operations, but the Iraqi resistance has not heard.



Clearly, the international prestige of the United States is deteriorating. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned before the invasion that attacking Iraq would create “one hundred new Bin Ladens.” Recent events have proven him right.



Islamic militants launched coordinated attacks in Morocco and Saudi Arabia, killing 80 people and wounding over one hundred. Palestinian suicide bombers launched four attacks in twelve hours, killing fourteen Israelis. Thankfully, terrorists have not succeeded in another attack on the United States.



In the wake of the 9/11 bombings, the U.S. government hastily formed an internal security organization. The Department of Homeland defense is tasked with preventing suspected terrorists from entering the country, and detecting them after they have infiltrated. But is this a sound policy? To answer that, we must pose another question: Is the terrorist a soldier, or a criminal?



Terrorism is an evil and low form of warfare, but it is still war. We must fight these terrorists as soldiers. Not to give these murderers the mantle of freedom fighters, but to wage war on them in return. Criminals are arrested, tried in a court of law, and sentenced. Enemy soldiers are simply shot.



Scott Piraino is a former U.S. Navy enlisted man and currently publishes his own news and analysis website, The Populist. © 2003 A. Scott Piraino. He can be reached at populist21@yahoo.com.

Sempers,

Roger