G'Day,
My apologies for a vague reference to Alexander of Macedon. I made mention of him only to refer to the antiquity.
The actual quote I was referring to from this thread was:
"This pattern has not changed since Alexander of Macedon carved out an empire. I only start with him because that is as far back as the illumination of history permits us to see."
That was hardly just a point to establish Antiquity but an attempt to place a hard limit to how far back military history had recordings of insurgencies.
While I do agree that the rise and fall of Alexander's empire was almost completly due to conventional warfare either led by Alexander or sparked by his death, my point was not "historical trivia". I pointed out the Miletus revolt against Darius/Persia after that Athenian colony had been captured and normalized into the Persian Empire. The insurgency is well known historically, as was the late entry of Athens into that insurgency as a supplier of material and agents provocature. The long running insurgent resistance, often ECONOMIC and periodically through arms only succeeded once Athens joined the campaign. The result was the Persian campaign to burn Athens to the ground from which the Spartains grew to fame outside their conflict with Athens.
That episode was very on point for any discussion of insurgencies and was provided for that and for the primary reason of redressing a constant mis-statement of facts..
This thread has mis-stated positions on Tet, Mao's Doctrines, the effects of weapons tech as a component of "hearts and minds", lack of the consideration or even recognition of insurgencies that do not fit Mao's model...
The fact is that insurgencies are not, de facto, armed struggles. An armed insurgency is just the most well noted and documented method.
Most insurgencies are grass roots organizations that grow from either local or broad popular
discontent. Some can be wide rangnig(The British Colonies in North America in the late 1700's) or some can rise suddenly based on a single issue. To show an example of the single issue best one can consider the "Rodney King affair". A broad and ongoing discontent was suddenly lit by the match of one jury's decision leading to wide protests and acts of internal terrorisim nationwide. While the local/national governments was never threatened, acts of violence were committed. The danger of a central figure making use of the passions that even exist today to organize cells and act is very real.
This...the state of affairs in the United States today...is the first step in an insurgency. Be it a broad public rising in certain areas or a small cadre of provocatures organizing cells and specifying targets. It would take surprisingly little to turn populations on each other over divided passions from racial relations to abortion to political affilliation.
These cells need not even be armed! They can spread discontent through tagging in currently violent areas causing increased gang activities which will increase violent police interventions in a municipal population already polarized over police killings...
Push that just a bit further with a stock of cans of paint and watch until one gang action gets broken up by cops with blazing guns... Then watch the city erupt! Stand back and watch as the National guard moves in and see how that effects the same campaigns in other major urban centers... Once more than thre cities broil over triggering national guard intervention...
Now you have your grass roots based Phase 1 per Mao.
But hopefully you see that Mao's "Phase 1" is only a step far beyond the beginning of activities. If you depend on his model than the forces you have to put in play for Phase 1 either "appear out of nowhere" or are supplied by a process like what I described above or by an outside organization/government. So what you see as my "problem" with Mao's model is that while you discuss it, you do not seem to see ot acknowledge the serious holes in it. This was what drove a good part of my commentary to point out that he was writing to an agenda. I hoped that they would drive you to look at Mao's model and understand that is is only a partial framework. As if somene built the piers and main cables for a suspension bridge but never really provided the ramps and roadway. I admit that message was hampered by my comments on historical and definition inaccuracy.
While it would be nice if I could come here and give you a suggested model to replace Mao's(from your point of view), I first have to show that the basis you want that model to stand on is wrong. People in North Korea firmly belive that they have if very good and the rest of teh world wants them to share!! Why? Because they see what they have been taught to.
When you say that the oldest military data we have for insurgencies is Alexanderian and clearly ignore Miletus. This tells me you either A) do not know enough history to suport the comments you have made or B) do not want to believe those items that defeate your positions or C) are supporting a framework based on a political agenda(and this is very well supported by a number of comments in this thread...especially where it related to Viet Nam)
So my responses are, in part, prescribed by your comments.
I find this thread has been VERY much consistant with positions described in the United States as Conservative Republican to the extent that presnted facts are actually bent data(at one point even presented from a news source widely recognized as "Yellow" and agenda driven themselves)
And I am a Decorated Verteran who is a registered Republican since High School graduation.
so I recommend that you all start looking harder at history before recommending Mao's writings. Sun Tzu's writings are more realistic and can lead to a much better undrstanding of unarmed insurgancies and passive corrosive actions vs authoratative regimes.
Marc
