How to successfully end an insurgency (lessons from Sri Lanka)

[Noobtastic]

You can hold it in long enough to get to the bathroom. We believe in you, boobie.

don't worry - im sure the hundreds of thousands made homeless by the conflict, walled off in fenced camps totally ignored by the UN and the left appreciate your intelligent, witty sarcasm.

I say we parachute some zionists or israelis over sri lanka...then maybe the progressive fat cats will direct their rage where it actually matters.

 

[cwjerome]

I think the article is flawed. There was most certainly a political aspect to Sri Lanka's decisive victory.

First, they "encouraged" a prominent faction of the LTTE to defect and join the political mainstream, reducing the strength of the LTTE by around 40%. Second, they obtained international support, especially from neighbors. They got the LTTE banned in the EU and Canada and got the political, financial and logistical support of key countries, particularly India and China. Relations with other neighboring countries (like Pakistan, Maldives, Malaysia and Indonesia) were strengthened. All this helped a lot.

COIN lessons from Sri Lanka should be of high interest to the West.

 

[werepossum]

I think the article is flawed. There was most certainly a political aspect to Sri Lanka's decisive victory.

First, they "encouraged" a prominent faction of the LTTE to defect and join the political mainstream, reducing the strength of the LTTE by around 40%. Second, they obtained international support, especially from neighbors. They got the LTTE banned in the EU and Canada and got the political, financial and logistical support of key countries, particularly India and China. Relations with other neighboring countries (like Pakistan, Maldives, Malaysia and Indonesia) were strengthened. All this helped a lot.

COIN lessons from Sri Lanka should be of high interest to the West.

It's far too easy to go all Clausewitz and "total war" and forget the political reasons you went to war in the first place - to obtain a better peace. Sri Lanka has fought a very smart war lately, but it's not a model the US coalition can employ in Iraq or in Afghanistan because, as has been pointed out, to the Iraqi and Afghan people we are them in a way that the Sri Lankan government could overcome but we almost certainly can't.

 

[Zebo]

Exactly!! Good stuff!!!! I've been posting the same for 8 years now. So called "insurgency", or the most laughable term -"4th gen warfare" is nothing new - cream puff generals are who expose their men to unnecessary risks are something new.. Our Generals and polical leadership is responsible for every death in that sticky at the top of this forum, not the AQ/Taliban. These dead kids are lead by fools and a foolish country. You could pay me 10 million a day and I would not join these fools without immunity. OTOH I'd fight for free with Taliban if they represented my values due to their Alexander the Great until MacArthur tactics..

 

[Zebo]

As if putting not bombing AQ funerals and the utterly ridiculous rules of engagement wasn't enough, we've now apparently stepped up the careless disregard for the lives of American soldiers serving in Afghanistan with a new rule that says no chambered rounds. Sherman is rolling in his grave.

 

[Perknose]

Excerpted from below, the three tenets of the "Sri Lanka model":

1. Full operational freedom for the army, no negotiations with terrorists, no ceasefires to let them regroup.

2. Ignoring the differences between combatants and non-combatants.

3. The dismissal of international and media concerns.

Well, then, I guess we finally have our blueprint for our domestic militias and for any teabagger who so much as says he'll oppose the federal government with arms, right?

After all:

With this bloodshot hindsight, ask yourself what you would do the next time a charismatic, idealistic youth [or beer bellied geezer with a gun] with a healthy following turns [or even threatens to turn] violent to make himself heard: would you arrest him and talk to him about his grievances, or kill him the first chance you get?

Some charismatic type preaching "Rearm, reload?" Slaughter that bitch!

Talk to them about their grievances? Fuck no!

Dismiss [Fox] media concerns!

Wipe out the armed opposition before they make trouble, it's the only sure way, right?

Right?

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

As if putting not bombing AQ funerals and the utterly ridiculous rules of engagement wasn't enough, we've now apparently stepped up the careless disregard for the lives of American soldiers serving in Afghanistan with a new rule that says no chambered rounds. Sherman is rolling in his grave.

If that is true, it is funny. Not because of the idea that it's going to kill our guys, but that it's on the internet and the enemy now knows it. So more troops will die than you originally thought.

If only we could fight a war without the purpose of just killing young Americans. Because really, that's what this shit is. It's an excuse to kill young men and spend money. With rules like that...

 

[Red Dawn]

I'd fight for free with Taliban if they represented my values due to their Alexander the Great until MacArthur tactics..

Onward Internet Warrior!!!

 

[Nebor]

If that is true, it is funny. Not because of the idea that it's going to kill our guys, but that it's on the internet and the enemy now knows it. So more troops will die than you originally thought.

If only we could fight a war without the purpose of just killing young Americans. Because really, that's what this shit is. It's an excuse to kill young men and spend money. With rules like that...

The weapons aren't unloaded. They're carried magazine in, chamber empty. It takes less than second to grab the charging handle and load the weapon. As a result, you get far, far fewer negligent discharges. I live in a "green" zone and work out in an "amber" zone, and we've still had 9 negligent discharges in the past 3 months...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Pointing out another insurgency that failed, without using the "kill everyone approach"

Link

So yeah, that article is BS in that it is the "one true way" to win.

 

[Siddhartha]

Good luck with that. The U.S. forgot how to fight and win wars after 1946.

Some call it "progress"... others, such as myself, call it "sad."

Do you think the US should kill everybody like the Romans did?

 

[nick1985]

Do you think the US should kill everybody like the Romans did?

Rome assimilated conquered peoples into the empire. They did not kill everybody

 

[rudder]

Even better list:

1. If it ain't your home, GTFO.

2. Enjoy your home.

3. ....Dude, go home.

Except sometimes the people in that home use it to train and attack your home or your interests. Sometimes that makes it hard to enjoy your home.

 

[rudder]

As if putting not bombing AQ funerals and the utterly ridiculous rules of engagement wasn't enough, we've now apparently stepped up the careless disregard for the lives of American soldiers serving in Afghanistan with a new rule that says no chambered rounds. Sherman is rolling in his grave.

screw that. I would rather take a dishonorable discharge. Sure it does not take a long time to chamber a round.. but still. Here you have an enemy that you cannot differentiate between them and the civilian population and the fact that when you meet them it will be them ambushing you... microseconds are going to count.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It sounds pretty straightforward. Exterminate all of the enemy people, combatants and non-combatants alike, and you win.

Problem is, we really don't want to kill the non-combatants.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Good luck with that. The U.S. forgot how to fight and win wars after 1946.

Part of the problem is that the nature of war also changed. The Nazis didn't retreat to the jungles of Germany to wage Viet Cong style geurilla warfare and the Japanese didn't try to defend Japan to the last man.

 

[Zebo]

RED - The only reason anyone is able to "win" in warfare is because the enemy sees that you have the capability and will to erase them from existence. If you are not willing to do this you are spinning your wheels and wasting men material and money as we have done since Korea. I do not support this type of wanton waste and perpetual war and have no respect for those who engage in it. If that makes me a internet warrior so be it but really I'm anti-war because of it and hate these kids lives, who join with best intention, being thrown away.

 

[yllus]

Well, then, I guess we finally have our blueprint for our domestic militias and for any teabagger who so much as says he'll oppose the federal government with arms, right?

After all:

Some charismatic type preaching "Rearm, reload?" Slaughter that bitch!

Talk to them about their grievances? Fuck no!

Dismiss [Fox] media concerns!

Wipe out the armed opposition before they make trouble, it's the only sure way, right?

Right?

The irony of promoting totalitarianism in order to secure freedom and peace hasn't gone unnoticed, but let's compare problems before we apply an identical solution. One is a violent secessionist movement that applies the principles of terrorism. The other is an excess of partisan bickering on cable television. I don't see the parallel.

 

[cwjerome]

It's far too easy to go all Clausewitz and "total war" and forget the political reasons you went to war in the first place - to obtain a better peace. Sri Lanka has fought a very smart war lately, but it's not a model the US coalition can employ in Iraq or in Afghanistan because, as has been pointed out, to the Iraqi and Afghan people we are them in a way that the Sri Lankan government could overcome but we almost certainly can't.

I don't think there is a model in the sense that you can apply the procedures and get the same results anywhere. When I say there are lessons, what I mean is there are things to keep in mind in certain situations.

There are many ways it's different: In Iraq the US had to deal with insurgents AND mediate mediate serious ethnic, religious and social tensions among various populations. Iraq and Afghanistan are both much larger. It's impossible to seal the borders in I&A like Sri Lanka could, and having non-friendly border nations is another difference. The military strength was much higher than what we've done in either I&A.

But it's one example that we can carry on to the future. Of special consideration is that Sri Lanka mobilized domestic public support to accept potentially heavy casualties on both sides in order to achieve long-term objectives. Hmmmm

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Did not the TT lose support (and eventually the war itself) from the general public and their own people in Sri Lanka when they themselves started targeting everything and everyone with a pulse?

 

[Perknose]

The irony of promoting totalitarianism in order to secure freedom and peace hasn't gone unnoticed, but let's compare problems before we apply an identical solution. One is a violent secessionist movement that applies the principles of terrorism. The other is an excess of partisan bickering on cable television. I don't see the parallel.

Indeed. It was only that one bit of irony you mention that I seized and riffed on in my shallow little screed. As for a more thoughtful reply, I defer to cwjerome in his posts #27 and #44 wherein he has best pointed out the shortcomings and limitations of this article as a generalized blueprint for any anti-terrorist/insurgent/them/those guys/group-in-another-country-you-fear response.

There has never been a "violent secessionist movement" or "minority wishing the right of self determination" that hasn't, from the majority side's point of view, "applied principles of terrorism," be it the Tamil Tigers, the Confederate States of America, the Armenians in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq, or the French resistance to the Nazis in Vichy France.

Again, here, I'm riffing off on what may well be considered a minor side point, but I do think it is an important one to remember when blandly discussing the level of large scale lethality to apply to a political situation.

Remember "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"? That was an unintentionally Orwellian nightmare of a statement uttered by a side in a conflict already doomed to lose, whether they then knew it or not.

The Russian communists under Lenin but mostly under Stalin first prevailed with their ruthless brutality against a mind-boggling array of White Russian and foreign foes on their own soil, including 50,000 American troops for those who don't know and those who don't want to.

Mostly under Stalin they then proceeded to kill tens and tens of millions of those who opposed them, sending millions more to the gulag. They reduced the impotent Russian Orthodox Church to nearly nothing, turning most of their churches into communist pioneer meeting places and such.

They practice all those points so casually put forth in that article and yet couldn't hold on to their absolute yoke in the end.

If anyone thinks that killing more Afghans more indiscriminately per that article is going to ever give us a more secure grip on that country well . . .

You can't govern any country forever without the will of the people! As Americans, how can we not know that?

 

[Zorkorist]

So what do you say to the arguement that there are 3 times as many Muslims in this world, rather than Christians?

The will of the people is Islam.

-John

 

[Zebo]

So what do you say to the arguement that there are 3 times as many Muslims in this world, rather than Christians?

The will of the people is Islam.

-John

At least. I say it's 10:1. I mean let's face it Christians in name only are most of them. "will" has nothing to do with it. Islam has an excellent propagation and retention devices where the perfect man has 9 children just like Mo and they will kill your ass if you leave, insult, or don't conform to Islam.

Mohammad obviously thought this one out unlike like that fool Jesus.

 

[Zorkorist]

How about you just give faith in people?

Jesus, Mo (lol), would like that, and understand it.

The people are those in power, and Governments, Religions, should take note.

-John

 

[Perknose]

So what do you say to the arguement that there are 3 times as many Muslims in this world, rather than Christians?

The will of the people is Islam.

-John

I'd say you pulled your "facts" out of your ass, which makes your drunken troll "argument" worthless.

There are at least HALF A BILLION more Christians on the planet than there are followers of Islam -- many more by some estimates.

CIA fact book for 2010:

Religions:
Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)