Bronco 27,696 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 11 hours ago, Monster647 said: I truly don't understand how these cartels are allowed to flourish at all within sovereign countries... Like where is the army? Back in 20th century... Maybe... But with current surveillance and drone technologies, any country should be able to take them out so easily... As others have said. Corruption is the primary reason. But also you talk about history, the history of the 20th and 21st century explicitly shows that conventional state militaries can't effectively combat guerilla forces. The gays know how to party Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster647 447 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 8 hours ago, Bronco said: As others have said. Corruption is the primary reason. But also you talk about history, the history of the 20th and 21st century explicitly shows that conventional state militaries can't effectively combat guerilla forces. I get it. I think guerilla effectiveness is a bit outdated. 20th century - yes. Guerilla forces were super effective. 21st century, especially 2010s+ with technological developments, guerilla warfare lost most of its power against conventional militaries as soon as guerillas try to hold even the smallest piece of territory as these cartels do... Look at cases like various Kurdish guerilla groups vs Turkey - they managed to continue fighting for decades. In the last decade or so, they have been completely eliminated everywhere they have not been under protection umbrella of a conventional army. You cannot hide in the dark, mountains, even in the buildings within cities. Intelligence, tracking, precision strike capabilities have really grown. As soon as you're caught in a single activity, it's pretty much done... Edited February 23 by Monster647 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 27,696 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 7 minutes ago, Monster647 said: 21st century, especially 2010s+ with technological developments, guerilla warfare lost most of its power against conventional militaries as soon as guerillas try to hold even the smallest piece of territory as these cartels do... Name 1 21st century defeat of guerilla organisations vs technologically superior conventional militaries? Afghanistan? Complete failure. End Result: Guerilla militia returns to power, all military progress erased overnight. Syria? Complete failure. End Result: Guerilla militia takes power from military dictatorship. Gaza? Not conventional warfare, brought to a stalemate despite blatant violations of the law by the conventional military side. Guerilla militia driven underground rather than eradicated, domestic population further turned against occupying force and now we have clear signs of the guerilla force reestablishing control. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98g1klxnpxo Lebanon? Hezbollah remain in power, may be weakened but not removed. DRC? M23 has recovered from the ceasefire of the first rebellion and taken numerous towns in the Kivu regions in the ongoing second rebellion. Numerous other examples across continental africa including the conflicts in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Somalia, Ethiopia, Nigeria & the Lake Chad Basis, Mozambique, CAR, Libya etc The mexican drug war is a near 2 decade long demonstration that conventional military can't overcome non-conventional opposition. We're even seeing the impacts of guerilla tactics in Ukraine with both sides resorting to non-conventional attacks to attempt to break the stalemate the conventional militaries have come to. With both sides employing terrorist inspired tactics to strike deep within enemy territory to attempt to break the opposition morale. The gays know how to party 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster647 447 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Bronco said: Name 1 21st century defeat of guerilla organisations vs technologically superior conventional militaries? PKK has been stamped out in Turkey completely. 57 minutes ago, Bronco said: Afghanistan? Complete failure. End Result: Guerilla militia returns to power, all military progress erased overnight. Conflating notions. Taliban was defeated in 2001 pretty easily. It's an insurgency with constant supply of manpower because nothing replaced their power structure. They would remain defeated if central Afghan government managed to have a conventional military force and have local support to govern its own country, instead they collapsed as soon as western forces withdrew... It's a cycle of insurgency that's not been prevented. Not the guerilla not being defeated... 57 minutes ago, Bronco said: Syria? Complete failure. End Result: Guerilla militia takes power from military dictatorship. Conventional armies won in Syria. In fact, this may be the single greatest example of how exposed any guerilla force holding territory becomes when faced against high-tech conventional army... Syrian regime was not a conventional military force by the time civil war erupted. In fact, defectors from the Syrian army constituted majority of other factions. Most of Syrian Civil War was decided by army support. - When America put its hand down, Kurds made gains under American power. - When Russians put its hand down, Syrian regime made gains under Russian power. - And finally, Turkey put its hand down (Americans were more or less out, Russia was busy in Ukraine by this point), Syrian Rebels finished the job under Turkish power. All of the guerilla forces were pretty useless agaisnt any proper army... As soon as proper organized armies put their hand down, guerilla forces collapsed... For the rest of this debate, I think you're repeatedly getting stuck in examples where you compare a guerilla force struggles against dysfunctional ragtag armies that cannot be described as modern conventional armies or insurgencies continuing after cycles of guerilla defeats because the cause they represent is the local will. If we bring the debate back to its origin point, cartels are not (as far as I understand) expressions of local will that would result in an endless insurgency cycle if Mexico put its hand down and stamped them out for good. I am not well-versed in Mexico but based on what everyone is saying, it sounds to me that the Mexican army wasn't ever granted reign to actually tackle cartels due to corruption because government was complicit or benefiting from the drug trade... Edited February 23 by Monster647 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 27,696 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 10 minutes ago, Monster647 said: PKK has been stamped out in Turkey completely. But it hasn't though. PKK's central body agreed to dissolve as it had reached a point where it believed it could achieve its aims politically - like the IRA. PKK's satellites continue to operate and refused to comply with the dissolution (like the IRA). Turkey remains at active war with them. 12 minutes ago, Monster647 said: All of the guerilla forces were pretty useless agaisnt any proper army... As soon as proper organized armies put their hand down, guerilla forces collapsed... And yet continued to exist. And as soon as the conventional militaries withdrew, the paramilitaries reorganised. 13 minutes ago, Monster647 said: If we bring the debate back to its origin point, cartels are not (as far as I understand) expressions of local will that would result in an endless insurgency cycle if Mexico put its hand down and stamped them out for good Cartels are heavily entrenched virtually all regions of Mexico. They are absolutely expressions of local will (identical to groups like the Taliban) because of corruption and the entrenchment. They have in many areas become the primary employer & source of income. The state breaking them would absolutely result in regional destabilty as a result that would see the cartels be allowed to recover as soon as the state withdraws - because the state won't be able to quickly or adequately replace the wealth provided through working for the cartels. 16 minutes ago, Monster647 said: For the rest of this debate, I think you're repeatedly getting stuck in examples where you compare a guerilla force struggles against dysfunctional ragtag armies that cannot be described as modern conventional armies or insurgencies continuing after cycles of guerilla defeats because the cause they represent is the local will Literally all of my examples were conventional guerilla forces that have repeatedly ebbed and flowed against conventional state militaries (many backed by international stalwarts). You're making the mistake of thinking "local will" is a homogenous uniform thing. And not something that can simply mean a local minority group that can outpower opposition. Which is what all guerilla movements throughout history have been - the strongest opposition group that are able to force their way to the top in a region and organise effectively against the state. The gays know how to party Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 27,696 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 20 minutes ago, Monster647 said: I am not well-versed in Mexico but based on what everyone is saying, it sounds to me that the Mexican army wasn't ever granted reign to actually tackle cartels due to corruption because government was complicit or benefiting from the drug trade... The Mexican army has been repeatedly accused of colluding with the Mexican cartels. The most famous mass disappearing in the Mexican drug war - the Iguala mass disappearing has been tied to the Mexican army and the Mexican police. The gays know how to party 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster647 447 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bronco said: But it hasn't though. PKK's central body agreed to dissolve as it had reached a point where it believed it could achieve its aims politically - like the IRA. PKK's satellites continue to operate and refused to comply with the dissolution (like the IRA). Turkey remains at active war with them. This is a topic I am actually intimately familiar with. None of that is true... To put it lightly, that's an "official cope". Kurdish political organization has never been weaker than now in Turkey in its entire legal existence (Erdogan's draconian executive orders pretty much revoked even all of their municipal level administration which Kurdish political organization has kept for decades)... They're further away than achieving any political aims than they've ever been in the entirety of 21st century... PKK simply cannot operate anymore because their signals get intercepted, satellites detect and track their presence, drones hit with precision guided munitions even in the caves within mountains moments later... There is nowhere to regroup, no safe haven, no hidden logistic channel, heck no where even to train new recruits at this rate... PKK used to be able to sustain a war of attrition. That's when they were able to engage in surprise attacks with rifles, mortars, bazookas and stuff... Game has changed, we're in 2020s, they were no longer seeing any actual soldier or any sort of hard target before they were eliminated... They disbanded as last resort to see if they can remove public antipathy (in the eye of Turkish public I mean) they've been associating to the legal Kurdish political organization by the way of their armed insurgency in a desperate effort... PKK satellites exist outside of Turkey but they're no longer Turkey's problem at that point. Even in those cases, Turkey took it upon itself to eliminate them from border zones outside Turkey, and has been successful in doing so. Turkey has active military presence in both northern Syria and northern Iraq from where PKK-satellites have also been ousted... Last bits of YPG (Syrian-PKK) collapsed just this January when Turkish backed-Syrian Interim Government mopped up Rojava... There is really no active war... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If an organized conventional military cannot deal with guerilla forces in this day and age, it will be because there is corruption (Mexico) preventing action or incompetence (Saudi against Houthis) or lack of actual technology that gives this sorta edge (subsaharan countries) etc etc... It's still a whole other debate as to how repeat insurgency can be prevented once the current organization and hierarchy of a specific group of guerilla forces are eliminated-dismantled tho... My whole point is that even the most well funded guerilla forces cannot compete with the extent of modern military technologies as soon as they hold ground... Edited February 23 by Monster647 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 27,696 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 15 minutes ago, Monster647 said: My whole point is that even the most well funded guerilla forces cannot compete with the extent of modern military technologies as soon as they hold ground... And yet you can't explain what happened in Afghanistan. A 2 decade long war of attrition between a guerilla force fighting the most well funded and advanced military the world has ever known. Thousands of dead NATO forces and what was the end result? A complete return to pre-war power. And then we have Gaza. Israel virtually destroyed the entire Gaza strip, killed 70,000+. And the current situation? Hamas crawling back out of the tunnels and reasserting itself over Gazans. Lebanon - Hezbollah remains in power. Israel hasn't removed them, just forced them to focus on rebuilding rather than supporting Hamas. Literally every warfare focused academic repeatedly says you can't defeat non-traditional groups. Because there is no verifiable way to ensure their defeat. Its fighting a hydra. The gays know how to party Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster647 447 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bronco said: And yet you can't explain what happened in Afghanistan. A 2 decade long war of attrition between a guerilla force fighting the most well funded and advanced military the world has ever known. Thousands of dead NATO forces and what was the end result? A complete return to pre-war power. And then we have Gaza. Israel virtually destroyed the entire Gaza strip, killed 70,000+. And the current situation? Hamas crawling back out of the tunnels and reasserting itself over Gazans. Lebanon - Hezbollah remains in power. Israel hasn't removed them, just forced them to focus on rebuilding rather than supporting Hamas. Literally every warfare focused academic repeatedly says you can't defeat non-traditional groups. Because there is no verifiable way to ensure their defeat. Its fighting a hydra. I already explained what happened in Afghanistan... Guerilla defeated within 2 months, only 3k deaths on the invading side which is like very little for invading a whole country, all of that with 2001 technology let alone 2020s technology... It's one thing to defeat, another thing to sustain. It wasn't a problem of not being able to defeat. It was a problem of not replacing the power vacuum. That's the problem of western backed-Afghan central government. Not conventional army not being able to defeat ragtag militias... Nothing is happening in Gaza literally. Gazans simply exist and react to the oppression. Last time they tried anything, entire Gaza got levelled... It's a demolition, not competition... In fact, Hamas' whole situation could only be described as constant defeat... They are constantly losing territory they were rightfully entitled to by past treaties... Points you state are out of context or outdated... Warfare focused academics no longer even think defeating non-traditional groups is impossible. New thought is that tactical defeat and continuous incapacitation is totally achievable... But you need to fill the power vacuum, create local support, and continue to sustain military pressure to prevent new takeovers... Edited February 23 by Monster647 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 27,696 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 9 hours ago, Monster647 said: I already explained what happened in Afghanistan... Guerilla defeated within 2 months, only 3k deaths on the invading side which is like very little for invading a whole country, all of that with 2001 technology let alone 2020s technology... It's one thing to defeat, another thing to sustain. It wasn't a problem of not being able to defeat. It was a problem of not replacing the power vacuum. That's the problem of western backed-Afghan central government. Not conventional army not being able to defeat ragtag militias... Nothing is happening in Gaza literally. Gazans simply exist and react to the oppression. Last time they tried anything, entire Gaza got levelled... It's a demolition, not competition... In fact, Hamas' whole situation could only be described as constant defeat... They are constantly losing territory they were rightfully entitled to by past treaties... Points you state are out of context or outdated... Warfare focused academics no longer even think defeating non-traditional groups is impossible. New thought is that tactical defeat and continuous incapacitation is totally achievable... But you need to fill the power vacuum, create local support, and continue to sustain military pressure to prevent new takeovers... Right. So the Taliban were defeated within 2 months and now run Afghanistan? Make it make sense. If you can't release military pressure and it needs to be maintained on a longterm or permanent basis to prevent regression and takeover. You have failed. You have not succeeded. There is no victory in permanent conflict. The gays know how to party 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.