> How do you know he's wrong already?
Doug cannot have asked this question after having actually read the link that Mike Larkin refers to. The "blogger" called Vietnam and Algeria "failed" insurgencies, because they did not militarily defeat the occupiers. That's completely idiotic sophistry, hilariously beside the point just as Mike implied. No one who understands the dynamics of guerrilla insurgencies has ever argued that it is possible for poorly-equipped guerrillas to defeat a modern army on the field of battle. The point all along, in the eyes of the practical theorists of guerrilla warfare as well as its objective analysts (e.g., Eric Hobsbawm), is that "the people are decisive."
Other examples the "blogger" cites include the communist insurgency in Malaysia and the Mau Mau in Kenya. Yet perceptive historical analysts have taken into account precisely these counter-examples, because the problem in these countries was that the guerrillas had the support of only one portion of the population (the ethnic Chinese and the Kikuyu, respectively). I have written about this, referencing a classic Hobsbawm essay on the US defeat in Vietnam which was already foreordained by the time US troops were introduced in 1965:
http://www.johnlacny.com/archives/000014.html
And the fact is that the Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq has changed the equation dramatically in that country. As recently as, oh, ten days ago, this was not the case, since armed activity was confined mostly to the Sunni areas and the Shi'ite majority was still wavering between semi-cooperation and only occasional outbursts of militant (yet non-violent) confrontation. That's just not true anymore.
I wouldn't yet say that a US defeat is inevitable at this point. It's still too early. See the link above for my take on the reasons why (they have to do with the necessity of more permanent and organized resistance leadership, as well as the uncertainties of a "people's war" occurring MOSTLY in the cities and towns rather than the countryside).
And contrary to Wojtek's point, there are examples of successful guerrilla wars that succeeded with minimal outside assistance. The Cubans, for instance, defeated the Batista regime with very little outside help, and the aid from the Sovet Union served only to keep the revolutionary government alive once it was ALREADY in power. In the absence of credible countervailing powers, it's true that guerrillas are in a less favorable position -- but it's not accurate to describe it as an impossible one.
Apologists for the occupation who cite historical examples in the attempt to find hope for victory are clutching at a very thin reed indeed. Things are going very badly for them right now, and there's no two ways about it.
- - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!