gaining advantage asymmetrical warfare

Port

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
2,093
portland maine
Guerrilla warfare has its strengths and weaknesses. Sherman & Grant were fearful of the confederate army breaking down into small bands of groups. The Native American style of fighting became weaker as the military might with new weaponry was developed and they had limited access to them .
For guerrilla fighting strategy to be effective it must have access to weapons, food, support by the local social structure better knowledge of the terrain. In addition the people need to see the guerrillas as fighting for them. Mao demonstrated this. However with Isis, they have access to modem weaponry, food supplies knowledge of terrain I do not know about if the population, or what per cent of the population supports their political agenda How can the present armies gain superiority over the Isis style of guerrilla warfare (or any other guerrilla style asymmetrical war?
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,724
Guerrilla warfare has its strengths and weaknesses. Sherman & Grant were fearful of the confederate army breaking down into small bands of groups. The Native American style of fighting became weaker as the military might with new weaponry was developed and they had limited access to them .
For guerrilla fighting strategy to be effective it must have access to weapons, food, support by the local social structure better knowledge of the terrain. In addition the people need to see the guerrillas as fighting for them. Mao demonstrated this. However with Isis, they have access to modem weaponry, food supplies knowledge of terrain I do not know about if the population, or what per cent of the population supports their political agenda How can the present armies gain superiority over the Isis style of guerrilla warfare (or any other guerrilla style asymmetrical war?
They can't win on the battlefield with modern sensibilities on constraint of force against civilian population. British against Boer war moved most of the civilian population into controlled camps and burned crops, fields, etc the version of infrastructure in the day. That is much smaller scale than would be needed Syria/Iraq due to population size and simply unworkable. Really it would take a massive ground army decades of occupation and even then no guarantee if you look at Palestine.

Best measures are to declare Saudi Arabia and Qatar terrorist states and sanction them while bombing oil pipelines and shipping facilities. U.S. produced oil would then boom with Saudi oil off the world market. Of course since China and others rely on Saudi oil while Saudis are 'allies' that won't happen and hence Isis will continue to get funding, supplies, and political cover to run their parhiah state.

Other options would be to give Turkey, Iran, and Israel leeway to move in openly but that would just setup future conflict even with worse outcomes.

Most of the problems originated in Saudi Arabia with the house of Saud basically allowing free reign to Wahabi in return for the Wahabi looking outward rather than at the princes whose liftsyle is decadent and not really matching Wahabi ideas of Muslims. With money flowing all over the world for decades it will be a slow process as the conditions are perfect for extremist thinking- large young population with little hope of attaining a western future and centuries of grievances to inspire whatever men eager for power want while moral cover is given by twisted religious fatwa who descended from Wahabi founded schools whose authority can't be challenged without also challenging the rights of the House of Saud to rule Arabia.
 
Mar 2014
8,881
Canterbury
ISIS isn't really a guerrilla army. It is an army trying a little too hard to be regular while operating guerrilla practices on the side-lines. So it can be overcame with standard firepower backed by allies' ground advance - i.e., exactly what we are doing - if we haven't badly under-estimated its numbers and resolve.
 
Apr 2015
334
Texas
As Ichon has stated, without wholesale destruction of civilians and their assets, there is no realistic way to completely defeat an insugency.

Add to the equation that world and regional powers have vested interests in the conflict, and the result is an open ended conflict with a difficult to define end.

In my opinion (which could be incorrect), an assymetrical conflict will only end when the civilian population becomes tired of it.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,724
As Ichon has stated, without wholesale destruction of civilians and their assets, there is no realistic way to completely defeat an insugency.

Add to the equation that world and regional powers have vested interests in the conflict, and the result is an open ended conflict with a difficult to define end.

In my opinion (which could be incorrect), an assymetrical conflict will only end when the civilian population becomes tired of it.
Hard to find examples that didn't end with horrible violence and forced migrations based on the scale of the conflict as Ireland and such don't quite qualify. Sri Lanka is closest but only India had great vested interests there. Probably Bosnia and Herzegovina is closest with great powers involved but even that was much smaller scale as Serbia is much less area and population than the desert areas inhabited by majority Sunni tribes between Syria, Suez, Basra, and Iran.

Maybe greater Kurdistan would work but Turkey as a NATO ally makes that impossible so all the outcomes seem bad outside simply wait but I am not sure that will work- Afghanistan and Palestine have violence for generations even after the main invasions.