Look back throughout history and you will find countless attempts of invasion and occupation that were foiled by guerilla movements. Often times these insurgent groups are operating on shoe-string budgets while the invaders spend exorbitant amounts of money on personnel, munitions, and equipment, and yet they almost always succeed in repelling the invading force. Why is this? How is it that dirt poor insurgent efforts are so successful? And why haven't the invading powers learned their lesson? From the United States' Vietnam debacle to the Soviet Union's failure to capture Afghanistan, both are modern examples of world super powers faltering against guerilla resistance. The United States, having failed before at invasion and occupation, seems to have contracted collective amnesia. Any of us can crack open a history book from any library and read about Vietnam and Korea, Mexico and Japan. The U.S. faced so much resistance from Japan, in fact, that she was forced to drop not one, but two nuclear bombs in populated cities in order to beat the Japanese into submission. However, we somehow find ourselves in the midst of yet another attempt at foreign invasion and occupation. The Iraq war has failed on every level imaginable, from the original justification of the war to the horrid military planning that has resulted in countless thousands of innocent victims and no resolution in sight. When a foreign invader is met with heavy resistance from a large portion of the native population, the struggle is always bloody and almost always a failure for the invaders. Eritrea-Ethiopia A perfect example of such a failure is the 30-year Armed Struggle between the East African countries of Ethiopia and Eritrea that took place during the Cold War. Eritrea, a former federated state of Ethiopia who had been illegally dissolved by Emperor Haile Selassie into another Ethiopian province, boasted a backwater liberation army that numbered no higher than 80,000-100,000, but still managed to repel an occupying Ethiopian force of almost 500,000. The Eritreans, however, were not only facing an army of superior numbers, but an army of superior weaponry, training, and funding. You see, the Ethiopians enjoyed both financial and arms support throughout the 30-year conflict from the United States, the Soviet Union, and Israel, but were still unable to claim victory. The conflict started in 1960 when exiled Muslim Eritreans in Cairo formed the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF), an insurgent group who's goal was to expel all Ethiopian forces from Eritrea and gain independence. Emperor Haile Selassie was receiving arms support from the United States in exchange for sovereign rights to a patch of land in Asmara (the capital city of Eritrea) that was used to build a super-secret radio spy station that was used to eavesdrop on the Soviet Union and other Communist nations. As the United States became ever more friendly with Ethiopia's ruler, the Eritrean liberation movement began to blossom as thousands of young, educated Eritreans were signing up for the insurgency. By today's standards, the ELF would be considered a terrorist organization - further proof that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. The Ethiopian royal regime was ruthless and oppressive, Eritrea was ****d of it's resources and desired by every military power in the world for it's all-important Red Sea coastline and proximity to the Middle East - the Eritrean people were an afterthought. As such, the liberation movement was for the most part on it's own. The United States continued to provide millions of dollars in weapons and equipment as the Ethiopian army attempted to violently suppress all rebel movements in Eritrea. It was in the best interests of the United States, you see, since Kagnew station (the secret spy station in Asmara) allowed the United States to intercept radio transmissions from all over the world. However, to the United States' credit, it did eventually realize just how oppressive the Ethiopian royal regime was and began to regret providing arms to the Emperor. All U.S. arms support for Ethiopia finally halted when the Derg, a Marxist loyal group of hard-line military generals, successfully pulled off a military coup and ousted the Emperor. You may be thinking, "Well, the coup must have been a good thing. How could their leadership be any worse than the Emperor's?" Brace yourself, because the Derg was not only much more ruthless than the Emperor, they also had no desire to reach any kind of peace deal with the rebels. The goal was to either kill all the rebels and crush any hope of Eritrean independence or die trying. The United States did eventually stop aid, but not until after the Derg kicked the United States out. Up until that point, the United States, still taking advantage of Kagnew station, was obliged to continue providing arms support to Ethiopia. The Derg then used those munitions to go on a killing spree in Asmara, one of the worst acts in Eritrea's history. The Derg systematically ravaged Asmara and it's population, looting and killing any resident they desired. They would open fire on passing minibuses, drag residents out of their homes and shoot them to death or just burn them alive. If they didn't want to use their guns, they would use bayonets instead. Once the capital had been "secured", the Derg moved on to neighboring villages where they burned over a hundred villages to the ground, killing anyone suspected of collaborating or sympathizing with the rebel movement. The killing spree's went on for days, the death toll numbering in the thousands - Asmara had become an oppressive city, the entire city limits and surrounding villages under marshal law; and it was all made possible by the United States. Once Jimmy Carter was elected president, the United States began to openly condemn what was being done to Eritrea. But they still continued to provide arms until the Derg, lead by Mengistu, began to carry out what would later be referred to as the Red Terror. The Derg would massacre students in Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, because they opposed the extreme anti-Western, hard-line Marxist ideology that the Derg had adopted. After the massacres, the Derg put in an arms request to the United States that was too high for their Western ally to fill, and so the Derg dropped all relations with the United States and began a two decade long intimate relationship with the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, while all of that was taking place, the ELF was being challenged by another rebel group called the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), formed by Christian Eritreans who were unhappy with the ELF's leadership. The ELF and EPLF began working together in a collaborated effort to gain Eritrean independence, but eventually fell out with each other and fought a civil war for control. The EPLF would come out victorious, merging with the ELF and taking control of the rebel movement. They were in luck, as Northern Ethiopians in the Tigray province became disenfranchised and created their own rebel movement who's goal was to oust the Derg. They became the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), and joined forces with the bigger and more experienced EPLF as the two guerilla movements fought side-by-side against a much more powerful Ethiopian army. The two insurgent forces would come to rue the day when the Soviet Union joined the conflict on the side of Ethiopia. The Soviet Union adopted the belief that they had an obligation to support any nation wanting to join the Communist bloc. So, when the Derg appealed to Moscow for arms support to fight off Somalia, who was threatening from the East, and the Eritrean-Tigray insurgency, who was threatening from the North, Moscow happily obliged as they too noticed the importance of an East African ally just as the United States did. Thanks to the billions of dollars being sent in arms support, as well as sending hundreds of military advisors and millions in financial aid, the Derg managed to fend off the Somalia invasion (another example of a failed invasion attempt) and repel both the TPLF and EPLF rebel insurgencies, forcing them to take refuge in the Sahel mountains near the Sudanese border. There, the rebels spent 10 years regrouping and resupplying as they held off wave after wave of Soviet-backed Ethiopian military campaigns, baffling the Soviet contingency as they fruitlessly tried to figure out why they were unable to defeat the rebels. Moscow continued to supply the Derg with billions of dollars in arms every single year as they desperately tried to break through the rebel stronghold, it was no use. The rebels, on the other hand, were holding their own on a budget so small they had to ration everything, from clothes and food to weapons and equipment. An enormous Ethiopian army, backed by a world super power could not defeat this small, under funded rebel group holed up in the mountains. The ten-year stalemate caused morale amongst Ethiopian forces to drop so low, that high-level commanders were deliberately sabotaging missions because they wanted to see the Derg fall - even if it meant their own men would die. Finally, in 1988 after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, the EPLF made their move. They launched a full scale attack on Ethiopia's Nadew command post in Afabet, taking them by surprise as they defeated a contingent of Ethiopian tanks by blocking their escape in a narrow valley. To give an example of just how brainwashed and ruthless the Derg were, instead of allowing the rebels to capture those tanks and munitions after that decisive victory, the Ethiopian air force was called in instead to completely destroy the convoy - killing their own soldiers as the rebels sat back and watched. That was the turning point of the 30-year struggle, as the rebel movement began rolling through Eritrea and capturing city after city, village after village, until the Ethiopian army was finally driven out of Eritrea. At the same time, the TPLF in Ethiopia rolled toward Addis Ababa on their way to oust the Derg. But the Derg weren't finished, they continued to plead to the Soviet's to continue sending aid, but as the Soviet Union began to collapse, the Derg was left out to dry. So, the Derg found another way of securing financial support. They appealed to Israel and the United State's Semitic population by dangling the Falasha, an ancient Jewish community based in Ethiopia, in front of both powers as hostages. In return for allowing Israel and the United States to evacuate the Falasha from Ethiopia, Israel would provide arms to the Derg. It worked, as Israel gave millions of dollars to the Derg in return for the Falasha. However, the TPLF were nipping at the Derg from just outside Addis, and were asked by Israel and the United States to hold off it's entry into Addis until the rest of the Falasha could be evacuated. The Derg, taking advantage of the new Israeli supplied munitions began bombing the EPLF in Eritrea in the vain hope of repelling their advance, but it failed. The leader of the Derg, Mengistu, hopped on a plane headed toward Southern Ethiopia and told the pilot to change course and head toward Nairobi. Mengistu had just fled Ethiopia and the TPLF entered Addis, ousted the Derg and took control of Ethiopia. The rebels had won, fighting for 30 years against an Ethiopian power backed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and Israel. They had just accomplished the seemingly impossible, they had repelled an occupying force that dwarfed their humble insurgency. The United States At It All Over Again Why can't the United States learn from it's passed mistakes? Who in their right mind, having seen how foreign invasion and occupation has failed so many times before, would ever believe that the war in Iraq was and is the right thing to do, or that the war could ever be won? The reason why guerilla resistance is so formidable is because of human nature. We pine for our land, our heritage, our history. We fight for our land with a visceral determination against any invader because we feel an almost spiritual connection with the place of our birth, the place we grow up in, the place we call home. That connection motivates insurgencies, it motivates rebel movements, it motivates guerilla fighters to never give up and to never stop fighting against their invaders and occupiers. The sheer determination to fend off anyone that would dare to invade your home is the reason why guerilla movements have succeeded so many times in defeating occupying powers that would outnumber them, out equip them, dwarf their budget and overpower them with more munitions than they could ever imagine. It's also the invading powers' gravest mistake to believe that a war can only be won through military might, the same mistake the Bush Administration has made in Iraq and the reason why the United States has been unable to defeat the insurgency. Iraq was a mistake, in the same vein that Vietnam was a mistake. It took the United States a long time to realize that Vietnam could not be won, a delay that resulted in tens of thousands of dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. Are we going to allow the Iraq war to follow the same course?
Native Americans in both North and South America might disagree. How about Japan and Germany? The only reason any occupation does not work is a lack of ruthlessness to get the job done by the occupation force. If the US seriously waged war in Iraq the resistance would evaporate overnight. If we let Russia pour 400,000 combat troops into Baghdad like we did to Berlin you tell me what the result would be.
It depends on what the end purpose is. If your goal is to kill and/or subdue them, then it's possible to suceed (and there are plenty of examples throughout history). But if your goal in invading is to better the lives of the people who's land your trampling through, then you have little or no chance of success. I posted this link on another thread, but here it is for those who didn't see it, an article on a forthcoming study showing that "forced democracy" has a pretty poor track record: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601359.html?hpid=topnews
When you think of the Native-Americans, you have to realize just how exactly the early settlers defeated them. When you realize that the natives were fighting with bows and arrows while the settlers were fighting with muskets and cannons, you have to wonder just how the natives managed to last as long as they did. It is simply yet another testament to guerilla resistance, that a population so hopelessly primative put up such a fight that would have gone on even longer had the European disease train failed to wipe out as many people as it did. The settlers won because the natives were killed off by foreign disease and because they were technologically incapable of putting up a better fight. However, when you have guerilla resistance fighting back with equal weaponry (albeit with far less munitions at their disposal), you get outcomes such as the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict mentioned earlier.
I don't think the American Indians problem was a lack of munition--it was factionalism among tribes many of whom hated each other more than they hated the settlers.
Sounds like Arabs and Palestinians. How many time have the Arabs sold out the Palestinians, or each other to the Israelis?
If you look at the reason why we are still seeing moderatly strong resistance in this war, or what ever you want to call it, the most obvious and flawless answer is because we chose to stay in and try to impose a democratically run government before we secured the country from outside hostile entities. This action, us staying, was looked upon as: “an occupation with the means of absolute rule”, by a lot of people and by a lot more after our stay was proclaim to be so by terrorist figure heads. When in reality our occupation had the intent to help build a democratically run government, that, in return would help provide a more free life to the Iraqi population; I’m sure we had our own interests in mind as well. But anyways, by doing this (installing a government…) in a part of the world were the culture is totally different from western culture, and the beliefs of what is right and what is wrong (moral system) just don’t match; we are feeding the very same movement that we are trying to squash, ironically. It looks like this even more when the people who are declaring it to be so, are highly revered by the Iraqi people. The large majority of the population in Iraq does not respect talk or politics. This is because they live in a part of the world were respect is, mostly; only obtainable from fear and power….I guess the term I’m looking for is “dog eat dog”. By trying to look like “the nice guys” who are kindly offering a way, many Iraqis teamed up with the ones who would potentially kill them if they didn’t go along; if they acted like “the infidels”. This allowed outside influences to easily manipulate there motives. And the only reason why we have people in Iraq on our side is because they believe us to be the inevitable victors in this struggle for control. What I am trying to say is… control (for what ever means wanted, in what ever form wanted) is not obtainable by political action or persuasion, unless, it has been made possible with some show/action of power that was directed towards the call for control, ending or inevitably/consistently pointing toward success. So by us helping to build a democratically run government too soon before success was at hand or at least near, and by success I mean stability, we made it even harder for us to accomplish our final goal. Now I don’t think we knew this would happen, but I hope we learn from this mistake so as if we decide to take a similar course of action again somewhere else, we won’t have the same problem…outside countries or entities, like Iran and Syria or the media and opposing political party, supporting what we are trying to stop.
Only in certain situations, and to a limited extent. For instance, it will not win a war unless the enemy gives up. And it is only effective to your benefit if you are facing a superior force. (In todays world)
