10 ms·

Well, Afghanistan was able to defeat the Soviets. I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. Edit: some folks have mentioned seve

Well, Afghanistan was able to defeat the Soviets. I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. Edit: some folks have mentioned several, so let me be more specific: guerrilla wars to expel an invading power. This would exclude several attempted Marxist revolutions, but good points made about Chechnya, as well as Northern Ireland and Kenya which failed to expel colonial powers.

leereeves 5y ago
> I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. I can think of one, and unfortunately it was the Russians who won it, but Ukraine is much bigger and better equipped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KineticLensman 5y ago
The Mau Mau rebellion against the British in Kenya wasn’t successful.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  Neither were the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  The rebellion itself didn't succeed, but it's widely acknowledged that the brutality and violence used to put it down meaningfully contributed to Kenyan independence.
jcranmer 5y ago
The blog post specifically mentions Che Guevara's two failed revolutions as examples. Some more modern examples I can think of would be FARC in Colombia, or Shining Path in Peru, or LTTE in Sri Lanka. "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland would also probably qualify.
paxys 5y ago
> I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful Because failed ones don't last long enough to be remembered. There was a guerrilla insurgency in Iraq after Saddam's government fell, for example, which folded pretty quick.
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  Uh.... I think by any measure the insurgency in Iraq was successful in pushing out the US.
  - paxys 5y ago
    A civilian elected government has been running Iraq since 2005. US wasn't "pushed out" by insurgents but rather left in a planned gradual transfer of power. If anything, militant groups in the region (like ISIL) actually extended US military presence there by many years.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  That's not true--the examples I gave in my sibling comment are all decades-long insurgencies (which is why I can remember them). In general, the more likely reason is that most people tend to be resolutely incurious about foreign politics. There are, IIRC, 150-ish ongoing armed conflicts in the world right now (and this count is far lower than it was 50 years ago!). I suspect that even reasonably well-read Westerners would struggle to identify even a dozen of them. So people selectively remember the ones that involved the major powers (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam) while completely ignoring ones that don't (so, how about that rebellion in Aceh that failed...).
- somenameforme 5y ago
  Interesting note there. One of the leaders of the early insurrection was Muqtada al-Sadr [1]. There's a lot that's happened in between including him going into exile in Iran, returning, the US droning his house when it was empty to send a message, and much more. But suffice to say the conclusion of this story is that he's now becoming the dominant political force in Iraq. This is particularly relevant today since I think given the chaos around the world, there's a real chance that his name will come to be much more well known. But the point of this is that unpopular occupation forces trying to impose their will never really works in anything even remotely like the long-run. The only times it can work is when a genuinely popular (and not artificially propped up) leader is able to find common ground with the "enemy". For instance one of the best decisions we made after WW2 was with the leader of Japan, Emperor Hirohito. We actively avoided not only attacking him, but did not try him for war crimes, and let him retain control of the country after the war. He chose to lead Japan in a different direction following their defeat, and everybody came out all the better for it. It's very likely that had we executed him, or installed a puppet, that Japan's relation with the west would be radically different today. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr
jbay808 5y ago
> guerrilla wars to expel an invading power that hasn't been successful Palestine?
- simonh 5y ago
  They have expelled the invading power from their own population centres, Gaza particularly.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Until Israel gets mad and rolls and in stomps their shit again.
cellis 5y ago
Afghanistan won because they literally lived in caves and herded goats; they had nothing to lose but their lives. Modern adversaries to Russia have plenty to lose.
- mellavora 5y ago
  Well, they could also lose their caves and their goats, so it was more than their lives. Let's not underestimate the sophistication and resilience of less economically developed societies.
- pydry 5y ago
  Afghanistan won because the insurgents could be resupplied and given shelter by Pashtun pakistanis next door and because every part of the country is surrounded by mountains with very few, very easily disrupted mountain passes. When your reliable supply lines are all flights, costs will seriously mount up. Plus, they had stingers. They could raid and retreat essentially forever.
bnralt 5y ago
> I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. Modern Western countries haven't had much of a history of successful insurgencies. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were both invaded by the USSR (along with Warsaw Pact allies), and it didn't result in an insurgency. We shouldn't exclude WWII either, since that was the last time many of Western nations were invaded by outside powers. The resistance movements never seriously threatened Axis rule in Western Europe. Everyone seems to be expecting a large Afghan style insurgency, but I think it's far from certain that it will happen.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The 1956 Hungarian revolt happened.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Not successful.
nsonha 5y ago
I think people miss the point when they try to make the case that Ukraine can win, NOW. The thing is, if the Ukrainian is really again a Russian regime, and it sounds like they do (if because I'm not them can't speak for them), then Russia has already lost. In time, whatever puppet state that it creates, will fall. America learnt this lesson too many times, most recently in Afghanistan. The name John Mearsheimer has come up recently and I think one of the key points in his theory is solid: nationalism triumphs everything else, be it America branded liberalism, or communism. When he says "nationalism", it's actually not what we often think, in his theory it's used in the narrow sense that is the need to determine one's own country's destiny, as opposed to having to obey a foreign power.
bpodgursky 5y ago
The Tamil Tigers were defeated in 2009.
lenkite 5y ago
Afghanistan defeated the Soviets and the United States.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Was it really a defeat for the US? Seems more like the US realized the futility of nation building there and just withdrew, hoping the propped up Afghan government wouldn't just surrender or flee.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    That excuse for defeat can be given by any nation who withdrew from Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80... Result: Taliban Victory
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    It wasn’t a victory, it wasn’t a draw. It was a defeat, no matter what coat of paint you put on it.
    - tyingq 5y ago
      It absolutely was a defeat, but the asymmetric numbers get worse every year for a guerilla force fighting a huge war machine. The ratio of deaths for the US versus the Afghans was staggering...the Taliban won, but at a huge cost of life. I don't know if there's the same cultural will in Ukraine to absorb that kind of pummeling.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- nicholasnorris 5y ago
  Afghanistan was different enough in that it wasn't a unified Afghan government or population fighting against a Soviet invasion in the same style of aggression of what we're seeing from Russia in Ukraine. A new local Afghan government that had recently sized power in a coup begged the Soviets to help them consolidate power in a civil war in that the Soviets knew would only escalate through international intervention in favor of their allies opposition.
AceyMan 5y ago
I see what you did there .. => Cunningham's Law (a submission earlier this week) playing out nicely in the replies. ref., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_law
hammock 5y ago
Syria?

leereeves 5y ago

> I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. I can think of one, and unfortunately it was the Russians who won it, but Ukraine is much bigger and better equipped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

KineticLensman 5y ago

The Mau Mau rebellion against the British in Kenya wasn’t successful.

selimthegrim 5y ago
Neither were the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
AlotOfReading 5y ago
The rebellion itself didn't succeed, but it's widely acknowledged that the brutality and violence used to put it down meaningfully contributed to Kenyan independence.

jcranmer 5y ago

The blog post specifically mentions Che Guevara's two failed revolutions as examples. Some more modern examples I can think of would be FARC in Colombia, or Shining Path in Peru, or LTTE in Sri Lanka. "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland would also probably qualify.

paxys 5y ago

> I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful Because failed ones don't last long enough to be remembered. There was a guerrilla insurgency in Iraq after Saddam's government fell, for example, which folded pretty quick.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago
Uh.... I think by any measure the insurgency in Iraq was successful in pushing out the US.
- paxys 5y ago
  A civilian elected government has been running Iraq since 2005. US wasn't "pushed out" by insurgents but rather left in a planned gradual transfer of power. If anything, militant groups in the region (like ISIL) actually extended US military presence there by many years.
jcranmer 5y ago
That's not true--the examples I gave in my sibling comment are all decades-long insurgencies (which is why I can remember them). In general, the more likely reason is that most people tend to be resolutely incurious about foreign politics. There are, IIRC, 150-ish ongoing armed conflicts in the world right now (and this count is far lower than it was 50 years ago!). I suspect that even reasonably well-read Westerners would struggle to identify even a dozen of them. So people selectively remember the ones that involved the major powers (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam) while completely ignoring ones that don't (so, how about that rebellion in Aceh that failed...).
somenameforme 5y ago
Interesting note there. One of the leaders of the early insurrection was Muqtada al-Sadr [1]. There's a lot that's happened in between including him going into exile in Iran, returning, the US droning his house when it was empty to send a message, and much more. But suffice to say the conclusion of this story is that he's now becoming the dominant political force in Iraq. This is particularly relevant today since I think given the chaos around the world, there's a real chance that his name will come to be much more well known. But the point of this is that unpopular occupation forces trying to impose their will never really works in anything even remotely like the long-run. The only times it can work is when a genuinely popular (and not artificially propped up) leader is able to find common ground with the "enemy". For instance one of the best decisions we made after WW2 was with the leader of Japan, Emperor Hirohito. We actively avoided not only attacking him, but did not try him for war crimes, and let him retain control of the country after the war. He chose to lead Japan in a different direction following their defeat, and everybody came out all the better for it. It's very likely that had we executed him, or installed a puppet, that Japan's relation with the west would be radically different today. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

jbay808 5y ago

> guerrilla wars to expel an invading power that hasn't been successful Palestine?

simonh 5y ago
They have expelled the invading power from their own population centres, Gaza particularly.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  Until Israel gets mad and rolls and in stomps their shit again.

cellis 5y ago

Afghanistan won because they literally lived in caves and herded goats; they had nothing to lose but their lives. Modern adversaries to Russia have plenty to lose.

mellavora 5y ago
Well, they could also lose their caves and their goats, so it was more than their lives. Let's not underestimate the sophistication and resilience of less economically developed societies.
pydry 5y ago
Afghanistan won because the insurgents could be resupplied and given shelter by Pashtun pakistanis next door and because every part of the country is surrounded by mountains with very few, very easily disrupted mountain passes. When your reliable supply lines are all flights, costs will seriously mount up. Plus, they had stingers. They could raid and retreat essentially forever.

bnralt 5y ago

> I can't think of a guerrilla war since WWII that hasn't been successful. Modern Western countries haven't had much of a history of successful insurgencies. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were both invaded by the USSR (along with Warsaw Pact allies), and it didn't result in an insurgency. We shouldn't exclude WWII either, since that was the last time many of Western nations were invaded by outside powers. The resistance movements never seriously threatened Axis rule in Western Europe. Everyone seems to be expecting a large Afghan style insurgency, but I think it's far from certain that it will happen.

ipaddr 5y ago
The 1956 Hungarian revolt happened.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Not successful.

nsonha 5y ago

I think people miss the point when they try to make the case that Ukraine can win, NOW. The thing is, if the Ukrainian is really again a Russian regime, and it sounds like they do (if because I'm not them can't speak for them), then Russia has already lost. In time, whatever puppet state that it creates, will fall. America learnt this lesson too many times, most recently in Afghanistan. The name John Mearsheimer has come up recently and I think one of the key points in his theory is solid: nationalism triumphs everything else, be it America branded liberalism, or communism. When he says "nationalism", it's actually not what we often think, in his theory it's used in the narrow sense that is the need to determine one's own country's destiny, as opposed to having to obey a foreign power.

bpodgursky 5y ago

The Tamil Tigers were defeated in 2009.

lenkite 5y ago

Afghanistan defeated the Soviets and the United States.

goatlover 5y ago
Was it really a defeat for the US? Seems more like the US realized the futility of nation building there and just withdrew, hoping the propped up Afghan government wouldn't just surrender or flee.
- lenkite 5y ago
  That excuse for defeat can be given by any nation who withdrew from Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80... Result: Taliban Victory
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  It wasn’t a victory, it wasn’t a draw. It was a defeat, no matter what coat of paint you put on it.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    It absolutely was a defeat, but the asymmetric numbers get worse every year for a guerilla force fighting a huge war machine. The ratio of deaths for the US versus the Afghans was staggering...the Taliban won, but at a huge cost of life. I don't know if there's the same cultural will in Ukraine to absorb that kind of pummeling.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
nicholasnorris 5y ago
Afghanistan was different enough in that it wasn't a unified Afghan government or population fighting against a Soviet invasion in the same style of aggression of what we're seeing from Russia in Ukraine. A new local Afghan government that had recently sized power in a coup begged the Soviets to help them consolidate power in a civil war in that the Soviets knew would only escalate through international intervention in favor of their allies opposition.

AceyMan 5y ago

I see what you did there .. => Cunningham's Law (a submission earlier this week) playing out nicely in the replies. ref., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_law

hammock 5y ago

Syria?