What was the last Insurgency that a Western Power Succesfully put down?

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Western powers only?

Cuz otherwise I was going to list Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Although the insurgents were Palestinian refugees... so I'm not sure if that counts. Although the Lebanese insurgents were pretty soundly put down by Syria.

Also how does one qualify an insurgency as "put down".... when there is 0 incidents?... Or when they are simply manageable. Israel's death rate from the Palestinians is now lower than that of our troops in Iraq now.... Would you consider the 1990s periodic bombings as an active "insurgency" in Israel?

-Max
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
I listed Western powers because we don't have the option of doing things like the Soviets or even Saddam Hussein did to quell rebellions IE poison gas, mass slaughter, etc.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
By put down... I mean coming to a political or military solution not involving withdrawal, defeat, or otherwise losing IE Vietnam, Algeria, etc. Continued warfare even at a low level does not qualify as put down IMHO.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I'm thinking the US in the Phillipines..can anyone think of another?
When was the Philipines? I remember (in a modern strategy class) reading about the British in Malaya, but that would have been in the 50s.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
The British in Malaya were successful, but were the only ones successful fighting a gurilla type enemy post WW2. Every other Major world power has always ran or ultimately got defeated by Gurilla forces. Pulling out to save face is defeat.


The Only reason the British were succesful is because they convinced the Local people to help them out with the promise that they would withdraw as soon as the uprising was defeated. The People believed the British slightly more than the Rebels. That is what made the British Succesful.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: smashp
The British in Malaya were successful, but were the only ones successful fighting a gurilla type enemy post WW2. Every other Major world power has always ran or ultimately got defeated by Gurilla forces. Pulling out to save face is defeat.


The Only reason the British were succesful is because they convinced the Local people to help them out with the promise that they would withdraw as soon as the uprising was defeated. The People believed the British slightly more than the Rebels. That is what made the British Succesful.

Thanks..that is what I thought. Well all we have to do is defy over 100 years of modern history and precedent. No sweat.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
The U.S. entered the Philippines after the Spanish American war (1898 app.). We adopted the .45 caliber handgun as a standard military sidearm based on out experience there.

I believe that the Turks are considered successful in suppressing the Kurdish insurgents (or, choose the word that you like to describe them). This was in the 90's. I do not think this kind of thing can work without an intimate knowledge of the population you're moving against.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,656
25,550
136
Didn't the phrase 'leather neck' also came from our experience in the Phillipines? Marines on guard duty would wear leather collars around their necks as those Muro tribesmen were sneaky lil buggers....something like that?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY