--- Matt Cramer <cramer at unix01.voicenet.com> wrote: >
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, James Baird wrote:
>
>
> And there's no way a few militia types would be able
> to, say, cripple a US
> Destroyer, right?
>
> Revolutionary wars in the 20th century are not
> fought on the traditional
> battlefield. If Osama Bin Laden didn't exist the US
> would have invented
> him. I'm always amazed at how easily people adapt
> the terrorist meme.
> What's the difference between a terrorist and a
> freedom fighter, anyway?
>
I've just finished reading Basil Lidell Hart's book on strategy. He agrees with Luttwak (or rather vice versa) on the subject of warfare against guerillas. Which is to say, he acknowledges that a straightforward army attack on a guerilla force is doomed to failure.
However, that doesn't make guerillas invincible. Guerillas have to exist side by side with a partially subdued non-guerilla population. The correct strategic response to the presence of a guerilla force is to, through force or persuasion, create a militia from the non-guerilla population, and use them to supress the guerillas. This tactic has worked pretty well everywhere it has been tried.
I'll point out in this context that there is no evidence whatever to suppose that the forces of revolution in the USA would be more heavily armed than the reactionary forces and a decent amount of evidence otherwise. Charles is right; the battle, when it came, would be between the Detroit Militia and the Michigan Militia.
dd
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie