'Insurgencies' by western forces, aka I ramble about insurgencies

I often think about how effective an insurgency is against an invading (usually western) force, and how they could be countered. So I began to think of whether an insurgency could be employed by a western nation, against one of their enemies (Iran, China, whomever). I mean a nation forcefully starting a guerilla (not unconventional, a full guerilla) action against the other.

In essence, it would be similar to what the CIA pulled of in ousting the Taliban. Is this (inserting a guerilla effort into another country) feasible, in use IRL or NS/SMS?


There could be problems with this. For instance would run in to the fact that it wouldn't have the support of the populace (having been implanted by the host nation), but then again it might not need it, as it can always be supplied from the host nation, and insurgencies often force the population to co-operate. In fact, we've already seen premonitions of this, for instance the SAS in Iraq, or CIA in Afghanistan.



Irregardless of whether this is feasable, I think we are going to see use of "indirect" methods increase greatly in the future.

Are you thinking of an 'insurgent' force to engage in demoralising attacks on an occupying force, or some sort of 'insurgent' resistance force intended to do their best to prevent the invasion, as a guerilla?

In the latter, you might want to look at trying to apply the JNA model to a 'western' style nation.

Or the British Auxiliary Units of WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_units

up t' ra

Or the British Auxiliary Units of WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_units

I suggested JNA, because while it's intended for an eastern bloc nation, it is intended to work with a limited amount of combined arms and modern tactical thinking.

I think you refer to Frank Kitson's pseudo-operations work. As far as I know, this was a success in the past (Selous Scouts) and was employed in Iraq.

I frankly cant comprehend the OP.

Are you talking about guerrilla warfare? Or merely unconventional warfare where regular or special forces apply irregular warfare tactics?


Are you talking at home or a abroad?

do you mean a western nation suffering an insurgency?

What the fuck do you mean!!!

If you mean can western nation support and/or sponsor irregular warfare in other nations...look at the primary mission of the US Army Special Forces, primary, original mission.

If you mean like suffering an insurgency...IRA anyone? Counterinsurgency utilizing unconventional tactics see the Brits and the Rhodesians.

But then Im not sure even what you are asking.

Is this better?

WOLVERINES!!!!!!

Is this better?

gracias.

He means using an "offensive" guerilla force deployed inside the enemy country, not using guerillas to counter an Iranian invasion of the US. I think.

Which obviously can be done in the sense of using special forces inside a country, but not having the support of the population means it's not really going to be effective in the way you mean. The US deposed the Taliban by supporting a pre-existing anti-Taliban faction, not air-dropping flat-pack resistance fighters against a stable and unified country.

Yeah I know.
US Army Special Forces primary tasking is working with sympathetic indigenous peoples to train and teach to be an effective guerrilla force, hence the reason I pointed to them for that. They do other things similar to other SOF units but their primary tasking is "going native" for lack of a better two word term.

If their job goes off without a hitch, you never know they were there except for the fact the peasants are suddenly a lot more fucking organized...

The profile was largely taken from OSS operations alongside french partisans and Maquis.
The OSS as I understand partly developed their techniques in this regard by barrowing from the British SOE.

OSS teams that did this particular work were even called "Jedburgh" teams in homage to the Scottish kats who resisted English rule(likely this was also because American commando training was being done in Scotland along side SAS and other British commando units)

Supposedly one of the more notable "natives" the OSS helped in resisting the Japanese in South East Asia was a young Ho Chi Minh...YAY.

But regardless thats the purpose of the US Army Special Forces-- ODAs train guerrillas.

Us Brits had a similar situation in Malaya.

What needs to be understood is that special forces are quite often overestimated by people, and in particular this is done among NS/SMS players.

In the real world, military special operatives have a more, shall we say, auxiliary role.

In a conventional military scenario, special operatives can be sent out to perform what one can intertpret as guerrilla task – sabotage of key objectives, disarming atomic minefields, assassination and kidnapping. These objectives, however, cannot replace the operations of a conventional military force – capturing terrain and objectives, destroying enemy units, etc. If military special operatives operate without a link to a conventional military force, they will eventually all get captured and killed and not accomplish meaningful strategic objectives.

In a guerilla scenario, special operatives cannot themselves start and carry out a guerilla war (for obvious reasons). They can perhaps carry out an isolated military sabotage operation but this is not the same as a guerilla war. You will only succeed in this matter if there is an existing insurency, or at least fertile ground for one which you can then support with special operatives, money and weapons.

An example of this sort of thing is the work of Soviet special operatives in Spain during the civil war there.

This thread is missing Red Dawn.



Also, I agree broadly with Allanea here.