|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:46 am Post subject: militias |
 |
|
It is interesting to me that tribal/ethnic/religious militias seem to have the upper hand over national armies at the moment. In the Ukraine, right sector and weird neo nazi groups seem to do the majority of the fighting for the regime, while slav nationalists fight for the rebels. Locals don't seem enthused about dying for either side.
In Syria Isis and al nusrah keep on kicking Syrian/Iraqi/Kurdish regular military forces, only being stopped by shia militiamen around baghdad.
Libya seems to be coalescing around tribal militias as well, and in Yemen, the houthis and ALQ seem to bat the gov troops around at will. Are national armies less effective then they were? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
The issue is that politically, things that used to be acceptable for national armies to do, like firebomb entire cities and kill 100,000 people in a single night are now verboten. We're trying to win hearts and minds and prop up friendly regimes, not conquer entire countries. You can't just round up an entire village and slaughter it if you want to be part of the global community.
Also, many of the "national armies" are little more than glorified militias themselves. Either that or they have serious backing from outside powers with real national armies. People talk about "losing" to these militias, but its not like they're going to come to the US and topple our government or annex France and create Vichy France, Rd. 2.
The most recent place where they have utterly won I think would be Somalia. In Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Sudan you basically had/have civil war type conditions. Maybe in one of the conflicts in central Africa they might have won. A lot of times where militias "win" it is simply the other side doing a cost-benefit analysis and concluding that having a slow and steady drain of 50 dead a month and a bunch of money isn't worth it when the militias if left alone will piss some other group off and get in a war with them that may lead to them being routed. The total dead over 10 years in many of these conflicts would be a slow month compared to other wars in the 20th century.
But I'm sure there is someone out there who will come on and argue about how ISIS has totally kicked US military butt and the US military is useless and can't win any fight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good points sr, but arent the Taliban and Isis just super militias? Enormous pan tribal levies? I am not saying they beat us in the actual fighting, but like you said, they made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so unpopular that they were untenable politically. As per your point on atrocities, I was trying to come up with an insurgency that was successfully put down, and the only one that was clear to me as the Tamil tigers. The Chinese helped the sinilise to annihilate them in what would surely be considered war crimes. Perhaps hearts and minds is just not as successful as savagery? Maybe that's why militias are ascendant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: militias |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Are national armies less effective then they were? |
The guys in the militias have a lot more self-motivation, whereas the guys in the national militaries are mostly just going through the motions for paychecks and retirement pensions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Good points sr, but arent the Taliban and Isis just super militias? Enormous pan tribal levies? I am not saying they beat us in the actual fighting, but like you said, they made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so unpopular that they were untenable politically. |
The insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are both going to go down in the history books as defeating the US military. Americans are spoiled. We're legendary at talking about how tough we are on the computer as we drink Capri-Sun through a straw, but we're not very good at being tougher than our opponents in the third world and outlasting them in real life. We're good at starting wars, but not so good at finishing them. We're spoiled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:28 am Post subject: Re: militias |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Are national armies less effective then they were? |
The guys in the militias have a lot more self-motivation, whereas the guys in the national militaries are mostly just going through the motions for paychecks and retirement pensions. |
Yep! And in a lot of those countries, there was never much social cohesion. They were states that stayed together due to dictators more than anything else.
Syria was bound to blow up sooner or later. It has been ruled harshly by a minority Muslim sect. Its military is dominated by that sect in the officer ranks, but many of those actually fighting (at least when things began) were Sunni. I'm sure their motivation was very, very low. No surprise that initially the rebels had a lot of success. Once the "less motivated" Syrian soldiers were adios, progress stalled. Yemen has never really had a strong national army and has been tribal for most of its history. Probably the same could be said about Afghanistan.
Point being national armies are no stronger or weaker than they used to be, minus the dude at the very top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Good points sr, but arent the Taliban and Isis just super militias? Enormous pan tribal levies? I am not saying they beat us in the actual fighting, but like you said, they made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so unpopular that they were untenable politically. As per your point on atrocities, I was trying to come up with an insurgency that was successfully put down, and the only one that was clear to me as the Tamil tigers. The Chinese helped the sinilise to annihilate them in what would surely be considered war crimes. Perhaps hearts and minds is just not as successful as savagery? Maybe that's why militias are ascendant? |
I said years ago during the Iraq debacle that if we wanted to "win" the war, we needed to do exactly that: annihilate the enemy. Of course that wasn't politically feasible, and rarely is in this day and age. As you said, basically the only recent example is Sri Lanka. Even more reason to NOT start a war. If your'e going to do it, you can't do it half-ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Good points sr, but arent the Taliban and Isis just super militias? Enormous pan tribal levies? I am not saying they beat us in the actual fighting, but like you said, they made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so unpopular that they were untenable politically. |
The insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are both going to go down in the history books as defeating the US military. Americans are spoiled. We're legendary at talking about how tough we are on the computer as we drink Capri-Sun through a straw, but we're not very good at being tougher than our opponents in the third world and outlasting them in real life. We're good at starting wars, but not so good at finishing them. We're spoiled. |
And right on cue...
Really? Defeating the US military? This is clearly true because the Sunni insurgents/Mahdi Army are in control of Baghdad and run the government. Certainly the government of Iraq that still controls much of the country is not the one that was elected through a process supported by the US. And the Taliban flag flies over Kabul as the last Americans leave.
Oh wait, none of that is true. Sadr's Mahdi Army was so battered that he saw the wisdom of joining the political process. The Sunni insurgents continue in the form of ISIS, but historians will blame the government of Nouri Al-Maliki, which ignored counsel from the US, and chose to take a firm sectarian line. Unlike S. Vietnam, the government in Baghdad does not look like it will fall anytime soon as they continue to receive foreign assistance, in this case from Iran.
Afghanistan is a murkier situation, but the US left with a recognized government in place. The Taliban might return, but they'll simply return to a fractured country. The Northern Alliance would be rekindled and the conflict would continue. The only difference is that the Taliban would be much more leery of Al-Qaeda and ISIS and might potentially be open to at least some sort of small US presence and operations against them.
The issue isn't being spoiled, the issue is that the US is taking on much more difficult tasks, with extremely complex political and cultural situations. No longer can you firebomb cities and have the native police/army under your control mow down 1,000 villagers to scare everyone into submission. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Good points sr, but arent the Taliban and Isis just super militias? Enormous pan tribal levies? I am not saying they beat us in the actual fighting, but like you said, they made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so unpopular that they were untenable politically. |
The insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are both going to go down in the history books as defeating the US military. Americans are spoiled. We're legendary at talking about how tough we are on the computer as we drink Capri-Sun through a straw, but we're not very good at being tougher than our opponents in the third world and outlasting them in real life. We're good at starting wars, but not so good at finishing them. We're spoiled. |
It's also a question of where you're fighting too. The insurgents aren't going anywhere, even if they lose. It's their home, or close to home. While a foreign army can just go home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| It's also a question of where you're fighting too. The insurgents aren't going anywhere, even if they lose. It's their home, or close to home. While a foreign army can just go home. |
I agree, and that also harkens back to motivation. To Americans, it's a sport or entertainment to gossip about online. When we lose, our lifestyle doesn't even change. To the countries we attack, it's their home and way of life. They have to continue fighting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
And right on cue...
Really? Defeating the US military? This is clearly true because the Sunni insurgents/Mahdi Army are in control of Baghdad and run the government. Certainly the government of Iraq that still controls much of the country is not the one that was elected through a process supported by the US. And the Taliban flag flies over Kabul as the last Americans leave.
Oh wait, none of that is true. Sadr's Mahdi Army was so battered that he saw the wisdom of joining the political process. The Sunni insurgents continue in the form of ISIS, but historians will blame the government of Nouri Al-Maliki, which ignored counsel from the US, and chose to take a firm sectarian line. Unlike S. Vietnam, the government in Baghdad does not look like it will fall anytime soon as they continue to receive foreign assistance, in this case from Iran.
Afghanistan is a murkier situation, but the US left with a recognized government in place. The Taliban might return, but they'll simply return to a fractured country. The Northern Alliance would be rekindled and the conflict would continue. The only difference is that the Taliban would be much more leery of Al-Qaeda and ISIS and might potentially be open to at least some sort of small US presence and operations against them.
The issue isn't being spoiled, the issue is that the US is taking on much more difficult tasks, with extremely complex political and cultural situations. No longer can you firebomb cities and have the native police/army under your control mow down 1,000 villagers to scare everyone into submission. |
The Taliban might return? They run most of Afghanistan and have for years! Various parts of Iraq are governed by various groups.
Keep in mind, our puppet government even ran Saigon until it no longer did. Of course, you're not even willing to admit we lost the war in Vietnam, which was a complete loss for us and a complete victory for the opposing army. Americans are so spoiled we can't even admit when we lose. We make excuses. Because that's what spoiled kids do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
The Taliban might return? They run most of Afghanistan and have for years! Various parts of Iraq are governed by various groups.
Keep in mind, our puppet government even ran Saigon until it no longer did. Of course, you're not even willing to admit we lost the war in Vietnam, which was a complete loss for us and a complete victory for the opposing army. Americans are so spoiled we can't even admit when we lose. We make excuses. Because that's what spoiled kids do. |
The Afghan government established by the US remains the recognized government and until there is any change, they will remain so. The Kurds have relative autonomy, but since they are allies of the US, this does not reflect any grand failure on our part. Yes, there is the ISIS insurgency, they have not defeated the US, nor the Iraqi government. They are at war with everyone, from the Kurds, to the Shia, to the Assad regime, to even Al-Qaeda. This isn't some simple Cold War dichotomy of win-lose, this is much more complex.
Lastly, as far as Vietnam goes, the US performed what amounted to a tactical retreat in order to gain a strategic victory- A permanence in the Sino-Soviet split and the beginning of China's rapprochement with America and the West.
The Vietnam War was nothing compared to that. America couldn't give a flying crap about winning the Vietnam War if it meant driving a permanent wedge between the USSR and China and the slow beginnings of Chinese reforms.
Continuing to fight in war to achieve goals that damage other, more important strategic goals is folly, and shifting priorities that enables victory is not a defeat.
The Vietnam War was not some isolated matter. It was part of a conflict that had begun in 1917 and accelerated in 1945. On every battlefield, there is some sector where the victors were "defeated", but that doesn't mean they lost or were beaten.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the Vietnam War was the highest level of what was taking place. It was not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
But I'm sure there is someone out there who will come on and argue about how ISIS has totally kicked US military butt and the US military is useless and can't win any fight. |
Subtract your point about ISIS, and James Fallows has already written the article on Chickenhawk Nation.
The US military is bad, and a failure, but that has little to do with ISIS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| It's also a question of where you're fighting too. The insurgents aren't going anywhere, even if they lose. It's their home, or close to home. While a foreign army can just go home. |
I agree, and that also harkens back to motivation. To Americans, it's a sport or entertainment to gossip about online. When we lose, our lifestyle doesn't even change. To the countries we attack, it's their home and way of life. They have to continue fighting. |
That is why I hate it when I'm back home and hear Americans (Canadians included) say that they should attack NK. Sure, it sounds great when you're a Pacific ocean away. But how about the 25 million people in the Seoul metro area that would have to bare the brunt of a war? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| EZE wrote: |
The Taliban might return? They run most of Afghanistan and have for years! Various parts of Iraq are governed by various groups.
Keep in mind, our puppet government even ran Saigon until it no longer did. Of course, you're not even willing to admit we lost the war in Vietnam, which was a complete loss for us and a complete victory for the opposing army. Americans are so spoiled we can't even admit when we lose. We make excuses. Because that's what spoiled kids do. |
The Afghan government established by the US remains the recognized government and until there is any change, they will remain so. The Kurds have relative autonomy, but since they are allies of the US, this does not reflect any grand failure on our part. Yes, there is the ISIS insurgency, they have not defeated the US, nor the Iraqi government. They are at war with everyone, from the Kurds, to the Shia, to the Assad regime, to even Al-Qaeda. This isn't some simple Cold War dichotomy of win-lose, this is much more complex.
Lastly, as far as Vietnam goes, the US performed what amounted to a tactical retreat in order to gain a strategic victory- A permanence in the Sino-Soviet split and the beginning of China's rapprochement with America and the West.
The Vietnam War was nothing compared to that. America couldn't give a flying crap about winning the Vietnam War if it meant driving a permanent wedge between the USSR and China and the slow beginnings of Chinese reforms.
Continuing to fight in war to achieve goals that damage other, more important strategic goals is folly, and shifting priorities that enables victory is not a defeat.
The Vietnam War was not some isolated matter. It was part of a conflict that had begun in 1917 and accelerated in 1945. On every battlefield, there is some sector where the victors were "defeated", but that doesn't mean they lost or were beaten.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the Vietnam War was the highest level of what was taking place. It was not. |
Who does or doesn't recognize our puppet government in Afghanistan is far less important than who actually controls the areas in question.
And the USA lost the Vietnam War. Period. Just like Bama lost to Ole Miss in football last season. Period. All of us who cheer for the Tide can point to the SEC Championship the Crimson Tide won last season all we want and say the loss to Ole Miss didn't matter in the scheme of things, but that doesn't change the fact that Ole Miss won the game between the University of Mississippi and the University of Alabama. Even if Bama would've won the national championship, Ole Miss still won that game. As an American from Alabama, I get no pleasure in saying Vietnam and Ole Miss were the winners. But what I wish would've happened doesn't change what actually did happen. The USA lost in Vietnam and the Tide lost in Oxford. Sad but true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
