Around the year 200 AD, the emperor Lucius Siptimius Severus attempted to dominate the Caledonian tribes of present day Scotland. Despite superior technology, he lost thousands of men in a horrific guerilla warfare that left the elite Roman troops decimated and demoralized. The Caledonian people knew the land and lived in roaming groups that always seemed to be just out of reach of the Roman patrols. While a few Caledonian towns were burnt to the ground and all their inhabitants put to death, the Roman attempt to bring the Caledonians into submission with brutality and force were largely reversed when the tribes fought brutality with brutality and horror with horror. So frightened where the Roman soldiers of falling into Caledonian hands, that they would kill a wounded comrade rather than leave him behind to be tortured. In the end, Severus died before he could launch a full blown campaign and Scotland remained outside of Roman rule.
Even without the horror born of cruelty, guerilla warfare can be effective. In the American West in 1857, President Buchannen sent an army over the immigrant trail to the Utah territory to subdue what had been reported to him as a people in rebellion against the United States. Brigham Young, Utah territorial governor and prophet/president of the Mormon church, heard of the approaching troops. He sent his followers out onto the plains with orders to harass the army. While they were not to kill the soldiers or get into a battle, they were given free license to destroy supply wagons, steal horses, and do whatever else they could to slow the army or discourage it altogether. Low on supplies and food from the harassment, Johnson’s army was forced stop their progress and spend a cold, hungry winter at Fort Bridger. By the time they were able to complete their march the next spring, negotiations had come to a compromise and they entered the populated portion of the Utah Territory without fatal incident.
Long before Brigham Young or the Caledonians, guerilla warfare was recognized as a way for a substantially outnumbered or outgunned minority to effectively combat an invading force. All that was required was stealth, patience, a superior knowledge of the environment, and a will to fight and sacrifice in defense of one’s home. In today’s world of high tech weapons ranging from satellite monitoring to infra-red night vision, it would seem guerilla warfare would finally be outmatched, but it has proven not to be so. Today’s guerilla’s spend less time hiding in jungles and more time walking city streets disguised to look just like those they fight. While guerilla warfare has always been a form of total warfare, today children are strapped with bombs and sent on suicide missions to blow up the enemy. How does even the highest tech army fight against such misguided resolve?
Guerilla warfare has never been a matter of military victory or defeat on the field of battle. Rather, it is an attempt to make the conflict so costly that the “invaders” will choose to cut their loses and leave rather than continue the struggle. While it may be counter intuitive to military ideology, attacking a guerilla force with increased numbers and firepower may only further strengthen their resolve and provide them a greater stage upon which to present their theatre of intimidation.
In the past, it seems those most successful in combating a guerilla force did so by fighting fire with fire. In the Hollywood production “Apocalypse Now,” a renegade American commander sequesters a fighting force deep in the jungles of Cambodia and resolves to mimic the Vietcong tactics of horror and deadly intimidation to garner support for their cause among the local population. While the movie suggests that his tactics are successful in matching the enemy’s powers of persuasion, it also questions of whether such tactics can ever be justified or condoned, hence the protagonist’s mission to terminate with “extreme prejudice” the renegade commander.
So, what is the answer? How does a force committed to avoid guerilla tactics defeat a guerilla force? We live in a time when victories on the battlefield are secondary to the victory of propaganda. As long as there are fanatical individuals who are completely committed to destroying anybody who disagrees with their creed, there will be a potential for guerrilla warfare, or its application that we now call terrorism. I would suggest that the only hope is in self protection and winning the battle of ideas. These, however, are hardly panaceas.
Self protection, or what we now call homeland security, while seemingly a given, begs questions about how much freedom of unmonitored action will be given up to obtain security. Are we willing to give the government access to monitor all our communications, financial transactions, and observable personal behaviors in order to allow them to spot attacks in the making? Are we willing to bear increased security and inconvenience to make sure nothing slips through? Do we trust government to use this access only for the combating of terrorism and not for increased potential control of the population? These are hard questions that will not find a consensus of opinion. And even with complete access, there will be those that still get through the net and succeed in promulgating violence. Are we willing to accept the risk without always having to find somebody to blame somebody when the inevitable happens? I wish I had better answers to those questions.
So that brings us to winning the battle of ideas. There will always be extremists who see guerilla or terrorist violence as a means to control and influence. But the real battle is in the minds and hearts of the populace of the differing countries, religions, and persuasions of belief. I wish I had the answer to diffusing the irreconcilable differences between the children of Abraham: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. How do you convert somebody away from a world view that says that my beliefs and ideology are superior to that of others and therefore justify mistrust, hate, even violence. I myself think that what I believe is the truth. And while I may see truths in the beliefs of others, I would claim that the fullest expression of truth is in my own belief system. Does that mean I’m willing to go out and destroy those who disagree with me? No. But I would defend my beliefs rather than compromise to avoid violence by those who would suggest I convert or die. Does that make me part of the problem?
Maybe the best we can hope for is to promote understanding and tolerance, and allow others to believe what they will without being forced to accept our beliefs. Then again. . . do I support tolerance for the beliefs of others when I feel strongly that those beliefs potentially result in damage to individuals or society? If a man’s religious beliefs say it is OK to steal or have sex with children, should he be tolerated in his beliefs and actions? While I’ve heard some say that you can’t legislate or impose morality through government, all our laws are based on somebody’s definition of right or wrong. Abortion, the legalizing of certain drugs, the legal recognition of gay/lesbian unions, all of these issues are on the front line of these fundamental questions and I don’t have the answers as to how much government should prohibit or allow. I know what I believe about the morality of these issues, I’m less clear about society’s role in imposing one group’s morality on another. Nonetheless, it is going to be our ability to tolerate and integrate differing and sometimes apposing views while at the same time making a stand about values that define our society, which will define our success in combating the root of terrorism at home and abroad.
Even without the horror born of cruelty, guerilla warfare can be effective. In the American West in 1857, President Buchannen sent an army over the immigrant trail to the Utah territory to subdue what had been reported to him as a people in rebellion against the United States. Brigham Young, Utah territorial governor and prophet/president of the Mormon church, heard of the approaching troops. He sent his followers out onto the plains with orders to harass the army. While they were not to kill the soldiers or get into a battle, they were given free license to destroy supply wagons, steal horses, and do whatever else they could to slow the army or discourage it altogether. Low on supplies and food from the harassment, Johnson’s army was forced stop their progress and spend a cold, hungry winter at Fort Bridger. By the time they were able to complete their march the next spring, negotiations had come to a compromise and they entered the populated portion of the Utah Territory without fatal incident.
Long before Brigham Young or the Caledonians, guerilla warfare was recognized as a way for a substantially outnumbered or outgunned minority to effectively combat an invading force. All that was required was stealth, patience, a superior knowledge of the environment, and a will to fight and sacrifice in defense of one’s home. In today’s world of high tech weapons ranging from satellite monitoring to infra-red night vision, it would seem guerilla warfare would finally be outmatched, but it has proven not to be so. Today’s guerilla’s spend less time hiding in jungles and more time walking city streets disguised to look just like those they fight. While guerilla warfare has always been a form of total warfare, today children are strapped with bombs and sent on suicide missions to blow up the enemy. How does even the highest tech army fight against such misguided resolve?
Guerilla warfare has never been a matter of military victory or defeat on the field of battle. Rather, it is an attempt to make the conflict so costly that the “invaders” will choose to cut their loses and leave rather than continue the struggle. While it may be counter intuitive to military ideology, attacking a guerilla force with increased numbers and firepower may only further strengthen their resolve and provide them a greater stage upon which to present their theatre of intimidation.
In the past, it seems those most successful in combating a guerilla force did so by fighting fire with fire. In the Hollywood production “Apocalypse Now,” a renegade American commander sequesters a fighting force deep in the jungles of Cambodia and resolves to mimic the Vietcong tactics of horror and deadly intimidation to garner support for their cause among the local population. While the movie suggests that his tactics are successful in matching the enemy’s powers of persuasion, it also questions of whether such tactics can ever be justified or condoned, hence the protagonist’s mission to terminate with “extreme prejudice” the renegade commander.
So, what is the answer? How does a force committed to avoid guerilla tactics defeat a guerilla force? We live in a time when victories on the battlefield are secondary to the victory of propaganda. As long as there are fanatical individuals who are completely committed to destroying anybody who disagrees with their creed, there will be a potential for guerrilla warfare, or its application that we now call terrorism. I would suggest that the only hope is in self protection and winning the battle of ideas. These, however, are hardly panaceas.
Self protection, or what we now call homeland security, while seemingly a given, begs questions about how much freedom of unmonitored action will be given up to obtain security. Are we willing to give the government access to monitor all our communications, financial transactions, and observable personal behaviors in order to allow them to spot attacks in the making? Are we willing to bear increased security and inconvenience to make sure nothing slips through? Do we trust government to use this access only for the combating of terrorism and not for increased potential control of the population? These are hard questions that will not find a consensus of opinion. And even with complete access, there will be those that still get through the net and succeed in promulgating violence. Are we willing to accept the risk without always having to find somebody to blame somebody when the inevitable happens? I wish I had better answers to those questions.
So that brings us to winning the battle of ideas. There will always be extremists who see guerilla or terrorist violence as a means to control and influence. But the real battle is in the minds and hearts of the populace of the differing countries, religions, and persuasions of belief. I wish I had the answer to diffusing the irreconcilable differences between the children of Abraham: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. How do you convert somebody away from a world view that says that my beliefs and ideology are superior to that of others and therefore justify mistrust, hate, even violence. I myself think that what I believe is the truth. And while I may see truths in the beliefs of others, I would claim that the fullest expression of truth is in my own belief system. Does that mean I’m willing to go out and destroy those who disagree with me? No. But I would defend my beliefs rather than compromise to avoid violence by those who would suggest I convert or die. Does that make me part of the problem?
Maybe the best we can hope for is to promote understanding and tolerance, and allow others to believe what they will without being forced to accept our beliefs. Then again. . . do I support tolerance for the beliefs of others when I feel strongly that those beliefs potentially result in damage to individuals or society? If a man’s religious beliefs say it is OK to steal or have sex with children, should he be tolerated in his beliefs and actions? While I’ve heard some say that you can’t legislate or impose morality through government, all our laws are based on somebody’s definition of right or wrong. Abortion, the legalizing of certain drugs, the legal recognition of gay/lesbian unions, all of these issues are on the front line of these fundamental questions and I don’t have the answers as to how much government should prohibit or allow. I know what I believe about the morality of these issues, I’m less clear about society’s role in imposing one group’s morality on another. Nonetheless, it is going to be our ability to tolerate and integrate differing and sometimes apposing views while at the same time making a stand about values that define our society, which will define our success in combating the root of terrorism at home and abroad.
