Talk:Guerrilla warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Can guerilla tactics/war be used for expansionist purposes?

Say if you want to invade a foriegn country can you wage war using this type of strat/tactics? Please give historical examples.Thanks Anthony

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "[no url Guerrilla war and Iraq's future]", Kompas (Indonesia), July 5, 2005.

[edit] General Discussion

What about activities of Lawrence, T.E. on Arabian peninsula during WWI? Just because he became a media star does not change the fact that the Arab Revolt against the Turks was assymetric and relied on hit-and-run and dispersal tactics to succeed. Also, note that Lawrence himself was an accomplished theorist of guerrilla war: see his article on the subject in the Brittanica of 1938. I don't remember a "liberation war against France". Considering the number of times France and Spain have forged and broken alliances, could we get something specific? I'm guessing we're talking Bourbons or maybe Bonapartes, but I'm shaky between 1815 and WWI. JHK

T.E. Lawrence surely made a guerrilla warfare to achieve the political goals of Arab independence from the Ottoman domination.

Takima 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with regard to T. E. Lawrence. He was the first person to combine modern Guerilla tactics with intense nationalism to create a potent new military strategy.

dissymetric war is the one from weak to strong with military targets only, as the 3 Indochina Wars, while assymetric war is still from weak to strong, but with collateral targets, the defenseless children for parents, civilian people and institution for the contested authority with its police and military forces. Let's take Richard Taber's book on "The war of the flea". Commando warfare is no guerrilla.

Takima

Vietnam was not a guerrilla war? Hmmm. Must have missed something during those two years I was there! I think it would be just a tad more accurate to say that guerrilla warfare was the norm in many parts of Vietnam rigiht up until the withdrawal of US Forces. F. Lee Horn

On the battlefield and in common language, there is confusion between guerilla warfare and irregular warfare. The distinction is much at the level of the "Military Review, US Army", in Military and Strategic Sudies, out of Political Sciences. That's the kind of History Department at US Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.

Takima 21:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying something that I read from Gwyne Dyer's book "War". According to him, Vietnam seemed like a guerilla war because the North Vietnamese seemed to appear and disappear in the jungle. According to him however it was not a guerilla war because after 1965, most of the Communist units in Vietnam were regular units of the North Vietnamese Army using largely conventional tactics, supply and troop organization.

Even when we were under fire from a concealed unit, it was still relatively easy to tell the difference between North Vietnamese regulars and VC (rate and volume of fire, type of weapons used, duration of contact, etc). Even in the Central Highlands, units of the United States Army still came under fire from what we considered to be Viet Cong right up until I left Country in SEP '69. I'm sure Mr. Dyer is a good writer, but if your paraphrase of his book is accurate, I'm probably never going to agree with him. F. Lee Horn

BTW, guerilla warfare was known centuries before XIX century. It was just called differently, in Polish eg. wojna szarpana, podjazdowa, partyzancka (from: partia, that is small unit of army). I think that shouldbe reflected in article, what do you think? szopen

As far as whether Vietnam was a guerilla war or not, I think we might be arguing definitions, and I rewrote the paragraph a bit. In 1963, the Vietnam War was definitely a guerrilla war. In 1973, it definitely was not largely because the VC had be decimated by then.

Let's not forget not the Chindits and US Merrill's Marauders on commando warfare, but the OSS Detachment 101 did it's own guerrilla warfare recruiting the native "Kashin". The Maraudeurs and OSS Detachment 101 make that difference. OSS Major Aechimedes Patti helped Ho Chi Minh to put in the same order the "Liberties" on his declaration of independence on september 2nd 1945 as on the the US one. OSS were under direct controlFDR and followed his policies on China and Indochina.

Takima 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1960s and 1970s, Latin America had a number of urban guerilla movements whose strategy was to destablize democratic regimes and provoke a counter-reaction by the military." But the guerilla fighters would in all probability deny that these regimes were democratic (and often they weren't really)! Could this be rewritten more along the lines of NPOV? --Daniel C. Boyer

The most proper usage is "guerrilla fighter," not "guerrilla," even though the latter is very commonly used. --Daniel C. Boyer

ETA is not what I think of when I hear guerrilla. Maybe I don't understand the proper English meaning, but I think that guerrilla implies countryside, jungle or generally out-of-cities fighting. ETA acts mainly in cities. I don't know if it could be called an "urban guerrilla" (a concept, by the way, that's not mentioned in the article). -- Error

Not really. Guerrilla fighting is a style or set of tactics which can be used in any terrain. You could argue that guerrilla tactics are better suited for terrains that limit the enemy's line of sight (such as jungle or urban) but that is not a requirement. Rossami 18:58, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

With urban guerrilla warfare, the guerrillas tend to use the appropiate camoflage (civilian clothing) and hide within the civilian population, instead of hiding out in the jungle. Urban guerrilla warfare is a technically accurate definition for some of the ETA's activities and the Provisional IRA's violence against the British security forces (regular Army, Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Ulster Constabulary) in cities like Belfast and Derry. The IRA wore civilian clothes, kept the identity of members secret and hid within the civilian population with the help of civilian sympathisers who did anything from provide weapons and safe hoses right down to not reporting IRA activities to the authorities.Kingal86 19:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added a note about The United Irishman and The Nation. I found the reference to this on page 56 of the book The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland by Michael Davitt. Bernfarr 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The following occurs in the article: "The -illa term accepts the unequal fight between civilians against an organized State Army." This seems a contradiction in terms as 'civilian' is, arguably, by definition a non-combatant. Also, the adjective 'organized' applied to the state army (which should not be capitalised) seems to imply that guerrilla armies are not organized. If there are no objections, I'll be changing this shortly. FelixB 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Also, the etymology section badly needs citations. Is there documentation supporting the claim that the "term was invented in Spain to describe the tactics used to resist the French regime instituted by Napoleon Bonaparte"? Or that the "change of usage of guerrilla from the tactics employed to the person implementing them is a late 19th century mistake"? If not, these claims need to disappear. FelixB 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I'm not a native-speaker in english.. but i believe Guerrilla iss spelled G-U-E-R-I-L-L-A ... the title contains one r too much. if this is correct please change it! thanks! -- pit 16:28 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Looks like it is spelled both ways with Google showing twice as many hits for two r's. Rmhermen 16:37 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
ok. looks like there is a redirect from the one-r-version. but thanks anyway! -- pit 17:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
whichever spellings are correct, the article should probably use one spelling consistently, and mention other spellings as alternative spellings.
Two Rs is correct. --Descendall 15:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the bit about "_US-backed_ right-wing dictatorships" needs to be balanced with "Cuban-backed left-wing guerrilla groups" - I know Cuba, and probably the Soviet Union, tended to be linked to these movements. However I'm uncertain of which specific groups they supported, if they supported the vast majority of Marxist rebels or not. If someone knows and could modify that section a bit that'd be great. Trey Stone 07:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm a Spanish speaker, and it is spelled with 2 R's

Two R's is the most common, according to the Oxford English dictionary both are correct. The one 'r' has its roots in the French language while the 'rr' version (as mentioned above) has it roots in Spanish.

The language academy, la Real Academia Española, uses two R’s. [1] --Noé Æ 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not recognised as unlawful combatants

One could argue that while internment was in place that the British Government recognised that a state of conflict existed in Northern Ireland. But as they ran the the Internment camps with a recognised hierarchy like a POW camp one could also argue that they saw the enemy as combatants. The ending of internment ended that de-facto recognition and all future prisoners were to be teated as common criminals. Bobby Sands and the other hunger strikers hoped that they could force the British Government to recognise them as political prisoners/POWs. They did not succeed in getting that recognition (although they did get modification to rules under which all prisoners in NI were held) so the British Government never saw the pepople they called terrorists in Northern Ireland as unlawful combatants (from an armed conflict) they saw them as criminals arrested in a policing action (as did and does the government of the Irish Republic).

Likewise the Spanish government has never recognised that they are in a state of conflict with the organisations which they call terrorist, so the people they call terrorists are not unlawfull combatants. Philip Baird Shearer 09:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It may be true that the British government never recognised a state of conflict, legal or illegal, in Northern Ireland. However that doesn't change the fact that there was a conflict (or at least an insurgency) in Northern Ireland, hence all the references to "peace" (the opposite). The conflict in Northern Ireland could be seen as a complex civil war with three or even four sides: the British security forces (the regular Army, Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Ulster Constabulary) the IRA, the Loyalist paramilitaries and the Irish security forces (the Gardai and Army). Another note: the terms terrorist and unlawful combatant are in effect synonyms, since terrorism is often defined as unlawful political violence.

Kingal86 19:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry i dont see what the gardi and Irish army have to do with it at all86.42.138.22 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC) I wonder if it would be useful to the reader to more clearly compare and contrast a guerrilla with a terrorist / unlawful combatant. After reading the article and discussion, I'm still fuzzy on the distinction .... 216.229.91.244 07:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the following is IMHO: I'm not sure that it is possible to "contrast" a guerrilla and a terrorist. A Guerrilla is presumably someone who undertakes Guerrilla warfare, which "is a method of combat". The designation relates to the strategic and tactical methods utilized by the combatant(s), not to their combatant status, goals, or choice of targets . The designation "Terrorist" is often a political one, and is generally applied when target choices are judged to be unacceptable by whomever is pondering using the designation. Thus, Terrorists often (almost always?) use Guerrilla warfare tactics. Guerrillas, on the other hand fight for a wide range of causes, and may be designated terrorists, freedom fighters, irregular forces, etc based on the perspective of the observer. Psarj 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRA and ETA failed?

I have reverted the edits by User:Kingal86 because:

  1. For most of the campaing, most of ETA have never said that they want part of France. If they had the French government would not have tolerated ETA activists on RR in France for so many years.
  2. The ETA campaign is ongoing so it is premature to list it as a failure.
  3. The IRA (like ETA) puts out an extreme position (as did the British Government) but in reality the IRA was willing to compromise, as was the British Government. The whole point of the Good Friday agreement is that both sides could say to their respective constituents that they had won. If one says that the IRA failed one would have to say that the British failed. But equally one can say that if the British won the war so to did the IRA. If the Good Friday Agreement is an IRA surrender document, why are the Democratic Unionist Party so against the agreement?
  4. It is arguable that the Loyalist paramilitaries have waged anything but a terrorist war. Unless one recognises the IRA as a legitimate army (Catch 22), then the Loyalist paramilitaries targeted no one but civilians, which would usually be called terrorism.

Philip Baird Shearer 09:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The IRA is not a legitimate army in my opininon, and the British and Irish government's opinion, and many others' opinions (Unionists, Republicans and neither). But its armed members are still not civilians. They are unlawful combatants. And surely if the Nicaraguan Contras can be called guerrillas for the purposes of this section (even though they mostly targeted civilians, killing many, many more than the IRA, Loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces combined in Northern Ireland) then so can IRA and Loyalist paramilitary members.

I guess you're right that the ETA campaign shouldn't be listed as a failure. I still think the Provisional IRA's campaign (of guerrilla warfare against the British security forces, sectarian violence against Protestants and brutal terrorism against British civilians) could be seen as a failure based on its initial objective: an end to British rule, the re-unification of Ireland and a socialist republic. So surely some mention should be made in this article to this failure.

I know Loyalist paramilitaries murdered Catholic civilians and assassinated unarmed IRA and Sinn Fein members. But surely they must have also attacked armed IRA members. Such acts could be considered guerrilla warfare against the IRA. Presumably the aim of all these attacks was to end the IRA insurgency, which they did not.

Kingal86 18:54, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is careful to narrow what part of the IRA campaign could be considered guerrilla attacks such as the IRA carried out on British soldiers at Warrenpoint'. The reason why I put in so many links around the name calling in the same paragraph was because before I did that the section was involved in an edit war. If you look at treaty which came out of the the Anglo-Irish war, as the IRA did not achieve all of their goals by your current argument, one would have to argue that the IRA lost. This would look very odd given the current status of Southern Ireland. Yet at the time many members of the IRA thought that they had lost.
You say "The IRA is not a legitimate army in my opininon" the you say they are "unlawful combatants" Since the end of internment the British Government would not agree with you, because they can only be unlawful combatants if there is at the very least an armed conflict in progress, something that the British government has always denied. Therefore if an IRA gunman arrested by the security forces, he was tried in an ordinary criminal court as a criminal. Before (s)he was tried he was not held as a POW, which is what should have been done if he was a combatant who's status was unknown. Therefore if he was killed armed "on active service" by the British soldier or by a protestant gunman he was a civilian. Philip Baird Shearer 20:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did the Army use self-defence laws to justify killing IRA gunmen and bombers if they denied an armed conflict was taking place?

Yes. Philip Baird Shearer 17:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because under the laws and customs of war it is legal for lawful combatants to kill armed enemy combatants (including unlawful combatants), however if ordinary laws of self-defence were used there must have many more restrictions on the Army's rules of engagement in Northern Ireland. Kingal86 15:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you want another example of Spanish guerrillas failing, take the maquis after the Spanish Civil War. -- Error 23
32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Ira Did succeed in bringing worldwide attention to the human rights abuse of the british and therefore, its lessening...and i dont like the (modern day)IRA but in fairness...86.42.138.22 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Not clear outcome of the PIRA campaign; most sources talk about a stalemate from the military point of view, and the situation for the Republican political position in NI has improved dramatically since 1969: end of the Protestant hegemony, recognition of the so called Irish dimension by the UK, Irish Republic increasing involvement and influence in NI affairs (since the 1985 Anglo-Irish treaty), growing popularity of Sinn Fein, reform of the Police, withdrawal of British troops from sensitive areas and power sharing. The Belfast agreement also left the door open for the ultimate Republican objective (still not accomplished): the unification.

So I find in some way hard to appoint the 1969-1997 guerrilla war either as a failure or a success without entering in PoV terrain. In consequence, I removed a recent edit including this campaign as an outright failure. DagosNavy 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Furthermore, by including the PIRA campaign as a failure the article would be contradicting itself; the Post WWII section asserts that:

  • In the late 1960s the Troubles began again in Northern Ireland. They had their origins in the partition of Ireland during the Irish War of Independence. They came to an end with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The peace is fragile and it is too early to tell if a permanent end to the conflict has occurred and which group, if any, won.

DagosNavy 16:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronouns

I removed "although Loyalist armed groups were often referred to collectively as "Loyalist paramilitaries" rather than "Loyalist terrorist organisations". " because if the paragraph goes that way we will end up with ",they call the IRA, PIRA and...". It will end up being an alphabet soup with no extra clarity. The point of the sentence is not if a member of the governments miss out the pronoun "terrorist" (which they often do), it is that they never include the pronoun "guerrilla" and rarely if ever use more neutral terms like "gunmen".Philip Baird Shearer 08:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Che Guevara

I think che guevara's contributions to guerrilla's in latin america should be mention, also the Fidel Castro's guerrilla movement "26 de julio" also should be mentioned. and actual colombian "guerrillas" FARC and ELN should be mentioned(although they have right now the size of an army an are recognized as such), if we have a concense in this i will add all these things to the section. --Gotten 20:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolution

On the list of successful guerilla wars, does the American Revolution not fit the protocol? The fact that the regular army was, at best, non-dependable and as small as 15,000 at some times during the war, and also considering that the war could not have been won without the various, almost autonomous militias that used many of what we call guerilla tactics make it seem to me that it was, at least in part, a successful guerilla campaign.

That is what we were taught in grade school; the Americans won because they shot from cover, behind trees, Indian-style, and so had an advantage over the British and the mercenaries who were trained to shoot in volleys under the command and control of a central agency, in the open, in disciplined ranks of soldiers (the Thin Red Line). Thus the war of the American Revolution could be considered a war of attrition, in a test of political will of the Kingdom, which automatically guaranteed an eventual victory for the partisans, as an invading force has problems of supply, as compared to the partisans, who are at home. In the case of the American colonists, manufacture of their own equipment was the only option and an entire class of manufacturers and artisans evolved in the preceding century and a half (1600-1750), which provided the equipment and technology with which they fought. After the decline of the policy of mercantilism, which forced the indigenous manufacture by the colonists (everything from buildings, chairs, etc, to guns), a policy of supply of natural resources to the mother country has remained to this day. However globalization of the control of natural resources and the knowledge and technology of the planet are changing the game. Stay tuned. Ancheta Wis 9 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
Historians are fairly direct in stating that the AmRev was NOT a guerrilla war. While there were distinctive aspects of an insurgency (especially in the Carolinas and along the frontier), Washington and the rebel military leadership were clear in their desire to build, train and field a conventional army. While Washington's war could be seen as a perfect example of an asymetric conflict, it was not a traditional guerrilla war.

[edit] Guerrilla does not equal asymmetric warfare

In both the irregular military article and here, it's been said that guerrillas use asymmetric warfare. This isn't quite right. Asymmetric warfare applies to both sides of a war, not just the one with irregular forces. For example, what the US is doing in Iraq follows the doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Unless someone makes a counter-claim, I'm going to fix both articles. --A D Monroe III 02:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure Guerrilla does not equal asymetric warfare with colateral weacker targets, as the son for father and unarmed civilian population and institution. Guerrilla is about attacking military targets on a dissymetric warfare of the weak agains a strong. Merril's Marauders were about that dissymetric warfare afainst powerfur Japanes infantry in Burma ttp://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/merrill's%20marauders.htm.

Takima 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commando operations

Written by User:Takima on 28 Dec 2005:

Commando operations are no guerrilla warfare (Richard Taber, “The War of the Flea : Guerrilla Warfare, Theory and Practice”. Paladin, London, 1977) while they lack the political goal. Commando troops, as the British commando, were a branch of the armed forces. Guerrilla warfare is the expression of Sun Tzu's Art of deception, in contrast of clauserwitz's unlimited use of brute force.

If one removes the source from the paragraph:

Commando operations are no guerrilla warfare while they lack the political goal. Commando troops, as the British commando, were a branch of the armed forces. Guerrilla warfare is the expression of Sun Tzu's Art of deception, in contrast of clauserwitz's unlimited use of brute force.

What does it mean? If no one can explain it to me I will remove it --Philip Baird Shearer 23:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It means only that guerrilla warfare is a way to use military forces and operations to achieve political goals, while commandos troops are only irregulars, parts of regular armies. The difference is in the philosophy of war. In guerrilla warfare, military actions are instrumental to polital goals which are fundamental, while commando actions are purely military.

1- For Sun Tzu, in "The Art of War", english translation by USMC General Samuel B. Griffith (reference at UNESCO), "War is the art of deception". Then, military actions are directed not to destroy, but to achieve politiclal goals. The motto is "to subdue the ennemy without fighting is the acme of strategy". It's a long story at the time of Confucius with Confucean values.

2 - For Clausewitz, disciple of Napoleon, the Butcher of Europe, "War is an unlimited use of brute force", leading the way to "Total War".

All these come from Military and sSrategic Studies, out of Polital Sciences. Just go to the "Military Review. US Army".

Takima 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________

[edit] War of the Flea

  • "[…] The experience of the Second World War and of every conflict since the has made it clear that commando troops are not guerrillas. Nor can be the so-called 'counter-insurgency' forces now being developed in a more sophisticated school be considred guerrillas, although they may employ some of the more obvious techniques of the guerrilla fighters - the night raid, the ambush, the roving patrol far from a military base, and so on. (...). The guerrilla fighter is primarily a propagandist, an agitator, a disseminator of the revolutionary idea, who uses the struggle itself - the actual physical conflict - as an instrument of agitation. His primary goal is to raise the level of revolutionary anticipation, and then of popular participation, to the crisis pointat which the revolution becomes general throughout the country and the people in teheir masses carry out the final task - the destruction of the existing order and (often but not always) of the army that defends it." (Robert Taber, pp. 21-23, “The War of the Flea”, Citadel Press, New York, 1969).

Takima 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

essentially correct, although it may be also accurate to say that commandos use certain elements of guerrilla warfare.

[edit] Subversive War and Guerrilla Warfare

From the "little war" of Spanish roots to the WWII War of Partisans, we get a full view I've addsed. Takima 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole section is very unclear and seems only to reference the vietnamese. I dont think it belongs. Unless anyone speaks up, I'm going to delete it. Akrabbim 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Akrabbim 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________

“They cannot conquer an idea with an army”. Tom Paine, for the American Independence war (1775-1781) , from the Battle of Lexington to the Battle of Yorktown.

It ain't vietnamese, but plain American War of Independence.

Takima 22:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________


  • “[…] Too often we see guerrilla warfare only from the point of view of combat actions. This view is erroneous and extremely dangerous. Combat actions are not the key to victory in guerrilla warfare but rather form part of one of the six basic efforts. There is no priority in any of the efforts, but rather they should progress in a parallel manner. The emphasis or exclusion of any of these efforts could bring about serious difficulties, and in the worst of cases, even failure. The history of revolutionary wars has shown this reality.” ( from http://www.kimsoft.com/guerilla.htm)

Takima 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's Army of Viet Nam and Guerilla Warfare

Read this jolly good work.

http://indochine54.free.fr/vm/vietminh.html#top

Takima 13:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq

At the end of the article, it is said that guerilla warfare killed over 2000 US troops; yet isnt that the total number of dead soldiers in Iraq including those who have not been killed by guerilla warfare (meaning those killed in the initial invasion?)--DragonFly31 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what Wikipedia's page on Al Anbar Governorate says, the Governorate and its capital are not currently under the insurgents' contol. Both links (to MSNBC) on that page are dead, so I don't know how MSNBC initially put it. Second, the edit I made corrects some grammar in the paragraph. Please, do not revert.--129.128.45.126 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guerilla action/Terrorism in Israel and the Palestinian territories

I'm concerned about the wording in this section of the article, which seems slightly biased to me, in particular the following lines (quoted from the article, my italics): "...including the bombing of the King David Hotel. This act of violence, while certainly guerrilla warfare, cannot be considered terrorism because of the warning given hours beforehand for civilians to leave. Terrorism, by definition, involves the deliberate targeting of civilians, which early Israelis did not consider justifiable."

"The use of terrorism has become the norm for the Palestinian cause, targeting women and children in addition to Israeli combatants. This guerrilla warfare, unlike the type used by Jews pre-1948, is contrary to the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions because of its deliberate targeting of innocent civilians."

I've checked the page definition of terrorism, and while it's certainly disputed, I don't see anywhere where it says bombing civilian buildings isn't terrorism if a warning is given beforehand. Warnings were given by the IRA before some of their bombings, and they were still often (though by no means universally) considered terrorist actions. In the case of the King David Hotel bombing, civilians were intentionally killed, which suggests to me that it was a terrorist act. However, the word 'terrorist' is inherently controversial and carries negative implications, so it's generally best used as little as possible on Wikipedia, except where absolutely necessary.

My suggestion is to remove or edit the sections I've quoted to make them less potentially biased - i.e. simply say that the hotel bombing happened, without declaring whether or not it was an act of terrorism. I have no problem with the second quote, apart from the italicised words, which I think should be removed. However, I won't make any changes until a consensus can be found on the issue. I'd like to hear what other people think; give your comments below. Terraxos 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the definitions of each party's actions. (Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages) This is not an article on terrorism anyhow. Anyone biased to either side will manage to conjure up their own image of these events without needing Wikipedia to tell them what they think. :) I'm biased towards Israel, but even I can see that these paragraphs are a clear violation of NPOV policy. Joffeloff 18:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Irish War versus Irish War of Independence

There have been numerous Anglo-Irish wars throughout the centuries. The war between 1919 and 1921 is known to the vast majority of people in Ireland as the War of Independence. That term is chronologically and symbolically precise, indicative of the term's importance and technically less wrong (it was the entire British state and not merely an English/Anglo state against the Irish). The Irish War of Independence is also the name of the Wikipedia article on the war. El Gringo 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


It may be known as the Irish War of Independence in Southern Ireland but in the UK it is commonly called the Anglo-Irish War. The page now named Irish War of Independence was up until recently under the name Anglo-Irish War, and as you know from the talk page of the article that both names are acceptable. As both names appear in the first sentence of the article, the name of the article and the redirect is not of any consequence. There is no reason to rename the war on this page, as the name that exists is just as correct as the change you are making. Are you familiar with WP:MOS#National varieties of English? This is a case of the first major contributor to this section which was to use Anglo Irish War. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If British prejudices were to be the determining factor then Wikipedia might as well rename the Irish Republic page "Southern Ireland" because the British, and they alone, use that term loaded as it is with the paritionist imperialist British mentality where the Paddies can't have a nation but a part of it. Wikipedia, however, does not use a term simply because it is "commonly called" that in Britain. The fact remains that there has been a vote on Wikipedia about the name of the war: it was decided to call the page by its most precise and common name, the Irish War of Independence. You are clearly having trouble with that vote, quite like the British had in 1918 when the British state overthrew democracy because Sinn Féin won 73 of the 105 seats on the entire island. Finally, that overthrow of democracy, the partition of Ireland against the expressed wishes of the majority, was during the War of Independence, not after it. The act in question was the Government of Ireland Act 1920. This is not disputed by any professional historian, so please stop changing it. Thank you. 193.1.172.163 01:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing directly to do with "British prejudices" (any more than the American War of Independence does), it is part of Wikipedia etiquette to reduce edit conflicts. Please see WP:MOS#Disputes over style issues. Just because one page is altered this does not give a carte blanche to change all other pages which link to it. This is why there are redirects. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

the winners write history therefore War of Independence ipso fact bastardo02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland Post WW2

"and attacks on the nationalist population by loyalist paramilitaries who had strong links to the British state forces." - this phrase is ludicrously POV. Gerry Lynch 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Two words (among many):Miami Showband. El Gringo 04:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, El Gringo. I was going to comment to Gerry Lynch, just in general, that the statement is not POV, and certainly not "ludicrously" so, if it is supported by the facts. ---Charles 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] guerillas as terrorists?

The following statement, "Guerrillas are often characterized as terrorists by their opponents, as part of psychological warfare," should be removed from the article. While this may be true, it smacks of an agenda. Many conflicts have been fought using guerilla warfare (GW), and while one side or another may consider GW to be terrorism, whether it is/was terrorism or not does not remain in serious dispute to third party observers. Generally these fighters are seen not as terrorists, but as freedom fighters or revolutionaries.

Terrorism, although a subject about which there is much debate, which some also see as a revolutionary movement, is generally considered to be less "legitimate," if you will, which is attributable to its specific targeting of innocents. For an objective observer, the drawing any level of equivalency between the two is to at once detract from the legitimacy of history's freedom fighters (some of whose methods were certainly suspect) AND lend more credence and legitimacy to those who use terrorist methods.

If there are no objections, I'll remove the statement.

66.208.48.126 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of successful guerrilla warfare

The list is by far uncomplete. Those that may/should be listed are the following

FSLN in Nicaragua PLA in China (an odd omition seeing as how important his ideas were) Viet Minh forces in the First Indochina War (I dont mention the Vietnam War because of the heavy involvement of regular army units by North Vietnam) Pathet Lao in Laos Hezbollah in Lebanon (though I understand that many will find this unacceptable considering current events and or if they consider Hezbollah a major force in the war of 1982) Mexican revolutionaries in Mexico (as they did establish a new government) 26th of July Movement in Cuba

as for failed guerrilla movements and wars, they're are many, From rebels in Sierra Leone to DRC to Spain, Ukraine, and Russia, to Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Brazil, Colombia (by which I mean those who lost or were destroyed in La Violencia or who surrendered in the 1980s and 90s) to Peru and Boliviaand America if you count Confederates (since I see America listed on successful examples)

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of "successful guerrilla wars". Wars have (at least) two sides, so success for one side is not for the other. It would be better to use a phrase like "successful guerrilla campaigns" or "wars where guerrilla forces were successful", no? --BobFromBrockley 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How bout a quick mention of Hezbolahs successfull rocket attacks against Isreal.Despite being bombed and shelled for a month the rockets stilled rained down until the moment a cease fire was called. However unpopular,I would call that a successfull hit and run campain

Was Hezbollah's campaign in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict successful? I'm not so sure. They did not achieve their goal of bringing Israel to its knees, however you wish to define it. It did make life difficult for Israelis for a few months, but I think things are worse now for Lebanon and even for Hezbollah than they are for the Israelis. I propose either deleting Hezbollah's mension from the list of successful guerrilla warfarers or add a note to it saying that its level of success is highly debatable. --GHcool 05:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No response in a week. I'm removing it from the list. --GHcool 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It is highly debateable whether Hezbollah's foray can be termed successful either politically or militarily. If anyone wants to mention Hezebollah's success, it can be in their activity of building a "state within a state" inside Lebanon. On that part of their agenda, they can certainly claim success. But that is very different from the context of this article.

I think that the date during the guerrilla risings should be added next to the country.

[edit] A Pioneer of Guerrilla Warfare

Most people know about guerrilla warfare tactics of the post-Medieval period. I think this article should give more attention to one of the first pioneers of guerrilla warfare, the Roman Fabius Maximus of the Second Punic War. If you look at the methods of the Fabian Strategy, you can see that they are extremely similar to those used in the American Revolution, the Peninsular War, and in Vietnam but were applied about 2,000 years earlier! Not to mention that they were quite successful. When the SPQR failed again and again to crush Hannibal using traditional warfare, Roman unconventional strategy managed to tie down the Carthaginians for about 14 years. I don't know if Fabius was the father of guerrilla warfare but his influences were monumental. I think more attention should be given in this article on that.

Fabius as pioneer of guerilla warfare? - misleading Fabius approach was to AVOID conventional battle and he did so by constantly maneuvering large conventional forces to shadow and threaten Hannibal, while avoiding a major clash on the plains where Hannibal's cavalry was superior. Maneuver of large conventional forces in a defensive manner is NOT guerrilla warfare. is true that part of Fabian operations involved screening and covering activity which in any conventional army involves small unit actions,raids, recon, aggressive patrols etc. These may be guerrilla like but cannot be said to be guerrila warfare in the context of this article or Fabius being a pioneer in such. There is little similarity with the Viet Cong for example which broke up into small guerrilla or mobile units mostof the time. It would have been suicidal for the VC to maneuver conventional divisions as Fabius did. As for Fabius' influence, it was comparatively short-lived. While fine for Italy, he initially opposed the counterattack of Scipio into Spain and Africa, a counterattack that was eventually successful in forcing Hannibal's withdrawal and crushing Carthage. The claim is a bit misleading and should be modified in the article, to mention Fabius but contrast his operations to that of guerrilla warfare.Enriquecardova 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] guerrilla warfare has generally been unsuccessful against native regimes? - not quite

The large history of couples and rebellions in Africa, which various groups having clear political objectives and using small-scale mobility and tactics of guerillas show that such warfare has sometimes been successfully used. Among the examples- the overthrow of the Hutu regime in Rwanda (a guerrilla army was operating in opposition 4 years before the genocide), overthrow of the Liberian regime, the overthrow of the Idi AMin regime in Uganda, etc. In Asia, the Northern Vietamese commuists not only succeeded in expelling foreign forces but completed their victory against the southern regime. There are several other examples. This claim should be modified a bit to reflect this. Enriquecardova 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article cleanup

added headings, explanatory diagrams, and tightened editing. most of original text still in place under new headings. new headings will allow more scope for editors to plug in information. previous version mixed numerous topics together- with one paragraph on tactics suddenly jumping to commandos, then jumping to foreign versus native guerilla struggles, then jumping to terrorism, or jumping to urban versus rural guerrillas without clear structure. A standard reference like the Encyc Britannica uses clear logical headings for the topic- like logistics, operations, civil relations etc. Wikipedia should do the same- clear, logical organization- easy to read and follow. More can be plugged in with proper categorization now. keep up the good work on this page. Enriquecardova 07:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

How about a pronunciation guide for this? The common American English way of saying it is much different from the Spanish.

Maybe you can put a blurb in the text showing how to pronounce. This website on pronounciation mentions the word guerrilla if that is the main word at issue: http://carolinamayorga.alkem.org/media/pocket_guide.pdf
I saw nothing about guerrilla on that link. Merriam-Webster says that it is pronounced ‘gorrila’ like the animal. However as a Spanish speaker I know that their version is entirely different from the Spanish. The correct version is pronounced: geh-rree-yah. I wish I know how to transcribe that to IPA. --Noé Æ 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference trivia

Some concepts and situations in guerrilla warfare are glaringly obvious. Demanding citations for statements like "guerrillas need surprise" or "guerrillas need sanctuaries" or the fact that communist guerrillas used sanctuaries in other countries during the Vietnam War, or the fact that guerrilla warfare can be sometimes successful borders on the trivial. Demanding citations for the glaring obvious fact that American attacks deposed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan 2001, or the rather obvious fact that the Internet makes gathering publicly available information easy, is another example of focus on trivia rather than real content. Sometimes the citations demanded are 6 paragraphs below on the same page, such as a discussion of guerrillas during the Penisular War. This is really misusing the purpose of citations, and can be seen as a form of vandalism.

Using this approach, then every line of the article would need citations, but do we really need a citation to know that Kurds live in Iraq, or that India and Pakistan have had tensions between them, or that the Internet is used to gather info, or that the Taliban were attacked in 2001? The solid detail added by other editors, both general and in depth on worldwide guerrilla conflicts, offer a much better model to follow in developing this and other Wikipedia articles. Thanks to all the sincere editors who keep up the good work on this article with real content. Enriquecardova 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post World War II - also Poland

In Poland, we also had some fighters against soviet. Last of them was killed in 1963. Here's the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursed_soldiers Sorry for my English, Grot, polish wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.244.31.30 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It is good that you bring to remembrance these soldiers who also fought for freedom aganst both tyranies.Enriquecardova 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminated a misconception

I just got rid of one of the most common misconceptions concerning guerilla warfare. The Little Internet Kitty 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed AAA remarks

I just deleted a sentence which asserts that the AAA (Alianza Anticomunista Argentina) a group with government links born in 1974, supressed Montoneros and leftist ERP (Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo) guerrillas . The counter-terror of AAA was limited to selective assassinations of supporters and affiliated politicians, without facing these organizations in open combat, as the Army and other security forces did. The guerrilla in Argentina was actually defeated after the military dictatorship overthrew the constitutional government in 1976. DagosNavy 03:25, 8 February 2007

[edit] Primary contributors

In the lead: "Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war include the Cossacks, Mao Zedong, Abd el-Krim, T. E. Lawrence, Vo Nguyen Giap, Josip Broz Tito, Michael Collins, Tom Barry, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and Charles de Gaulle"

I realise its a busy article but is there any reason why figures such as Michael Collins, Tom Barry, Charles de Gaulle, and the Cossacks are singled out? Yes its clear they had some effect, but are they "primary contributors to modern theories"? Who, for example, is quoting the views of the Cossacks on military operations?

While a top ten of notable thinkers on the theory side is valuable its strange that no military strategists who have written extensively on counter-insurgency are represented ie. the ones defining the theory and recording the trends. For example General Sir Frank Kitson or how about Carlos Marighella, or Robert Taber of "Flea" fame. These are the ones who sought out the trends and even created new trends by helping authorities overcome old strategies and forcing new models of behaviour.

Rather than a list "Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war" which looks like a vanity of "my favorite guerilla" is it possible to cut out some of the deadwood in that list and represent some of the people who largely make sense of it all? Thought id raise it before making changes. Fluffy999 01:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet support in Latin America

I seriously question the claim that were soviet-supported guerrillas movements in Latin America. In fact, many soviet-aligned communist parties where blamed (by other leftist organization) because they denied their support to guerrilla movements in order to keep their support from the sovietic union.IsmaelPR 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/e/Talk%7EGuerrilla_warfare_99a5.html"