Hypothetical Insurgent Operations in Modern Western Nations

View Latest Activity

Home Forums Information & Intelligence Hypothetical Insurgent Operations in Modern Western Nations

Viewing 19 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #77068
      Joe (G.W.N.S.)
      Moderator

        For the sake of this discussion I’ll use a hypothetical Tyrannical Regime here in the U.S.

        Much of what has been written in the past seems to either rely on models from over sixty years ago or uses the same game plan that would be appropriate to repel a foreign invader. Compounding this are people who want to emulate big military operations and the other extreme that believe leaderless resistance would be sufficient. Leaderless resistance leaves far too many negative possibilities for the resulting government formation, the classic exchange of one tyranny for another.

        Those that desire to operate much like a conventional military organization place much emphasis on SOP’s suitable for large units with bulky logistic support. However there is very little if any mention on how to fund such endeavors.

        I do not believe this conventional approach is either desirable or achievable.

        In my opinion the insurgent needs to be far more flexible, mobile, and organized in much smaller numbers than is possible by such a conventional structure. Company sized elements (or larger) are too easily detected, fixed, and destroyed.

        The occasional bringing together of a large force to deal with a specific threat, which upon completion of this specific mission immediately disperses would not be the norm.

        Historically Western Nations have fought counterinsurgencies abroad, far from home. The military takes the brunt of their mistakes and desires. Inflicting great loses on this military force while conserving insurgent force was the key to driving them out of the area that is disputed, however this is not the hypothetical model we are facing. The likelihood of an armed invasion force seems less probable at this time. An invited UN type force is slightly more possible, but would lead to more issues within our own military with increased likelihood of military opposing such action.

        Insurgent operations within a Western Nation would be breaking new ground in modern guerrilla warfare. Instead of driving out an outside military force, the new objective would be driving out the current Political Organization. With this goal in mind the targets become very different from modern examples.

        Targeting the leadership from the Political to the Bureaucratic that oppose the insurgents goals would achieve a quicker and less costly results overall. Demonstrating the insurgents desire to avoid not only civilian casualties, but military and police casualties would go a long way in reducing armed threats to the insurgents. Insurgent targeting of only demonstrated threats of armed forces attacking or actively working against insurgent goals would also help in winning the peace after a successful insurgency. Even in such events, other than legitimate self-defense, targeting the leadership who orders and directs such attacks could help minimize their junior personnel’s future enthusiasm for such attacks.

        In fact, the ultimate intermediate goal would be to convince military to stay out of internal conflict and stay vigilant to outside threats that could attempt to seize on the perceived opportunity of a weakened nation for their own benefit. If successful the insurgents could then deal with the much weaker militant national police forces. This potential goal deserves greater attention in any future contingency planning.

        The direct threat against Political and Bureaucratic leadership is a relatively new concept that western nations have yet to experience on such a large scale. This could easily lead to a rapid “change of heart” of many politicians and bureaucrats.

        Leaving an escape option for these politicians and bureaucrats to use could mitigate the sense of having no option other than continuing the fight for their own selfish preservation, hence reducing the loss of life needlessly.

        The most overlooked aspect to such an insurgency is the offering of an effective alternative to current regime’s government. This needs to be addressed and disseminated to the target population. It would be more than embarrassing to exchange one tyranny for another after paying the price of such drastic action as toppling the current government.

        Examples of how Targeted Killing of key OPFOR could be conducted see this thread The Squad: The Intelligence Operations of Michael Collins.

        Below are some important points regarding Targeted Killing.

        Before continuing to my observations for Chapter 4 there are a few points I would like to make regarding my interpretation of the proper use of the targeted killing of key OPFOR personnel in the as yet hypothetical FREEFOR operations.

        As alluded to in the above statement, this Chapter starts getting into the details of the targeted killing of key OPFOR personnel.

        First, these killings should not be about revenge or retaliation; they are about eliminating a legitimate threat to FREEFOR operations and personnel. Evil men who for whatever reason are no longer a threat should be dealt with post-event, assuming FREEFOR victory, with legitimate and fair War Crimes Trials.

        Second, I am talking about the use of precision tactics that go to great lengths to avoid collateral damage. Not terrorist bombings or other WMD’s.

        Third, the targeting of OPFOR family members, whose sole offense is being related to the target is never a legitimate option, not only for moral grounds, but the intense hatred and determination they instill in OPFOR. This is regardless of any similar crimes committed by OPFOR.

        “The ends justify the means!” is utter folly. How we win is as important; if not more so, as is winning! When you fall into the trap of “winning at any cost,” this begins the first step into replacing one tyranny with another. Another major consideration is smoothing road to long term peace Post-Victory.

      • #77069
        Baldrick
        Participant

          You mention how this type of insurgency is basically unprecedented. I’m no expert on the issue but how would you rate the Irish conflict of the last century? Does that fit in this vein of consideration? Thanks for the reasoned thoughts here. So much of what is written on the subject comes across poorly.

        • #77070
          D Close
          Moderator

            I submit it would be impossible to drive out the current political force without removing financial oppression. The tipping point will be the rapid decline of the financial system as it exists today. This must be a precursor for action. I see this as instrumental in the power of OPFOR as it allows tyrants almost unlimited resources with which to combat FREEFOR. This is the greatest threat to individual liberty devised by man. Once this power is removed, all bets are off. Once some of the tentacles are loosened from the financial system, FREEFOR can compete. Until then, it must survive and slowly expand capability in the shadows. OPFOR has shown a predilection for using weapons of financial destruction (WFD) against regime opponents, both foreign and domestic. This power is used to bolster OPFOR-friendly regimes throughout the world and domestically. Dominant reserve currency status and control enable unlimited expenditure to suppress dissent. Is FREEFOR to play the role of Robin Hood? I keep coming back to this as a major lever of control for the regime. To compete for hearts and minds, FREEFOR would have to offer an asset-based alternative that would undermine the Fed monopoly of control in this arena. Use silver? Use .22 cal? Somehow, FREEFOR must have a way of borrowing and paying outside of the current repressive and controlled currency regime. Is the barter system an asymmetric WFD? It doesn’t work on a large scale. Maybe it will be the Yuan that plays that role. I don’t much care for Chairman Mao in my pocket and I suspect FREEFOR will not either. Ideas? If there is an alternative mode of value exchange that protects anonymity and freedom, people will choose it. BITCOIN is not physical, nor it seems, sufficiently secure. FREEFOR will need something like this in order to survive. Before any widespread ops take place, FREEFOR must be able to operate outside the financial infrastructure currently in place and be able to share this ability with sympathetic citizens.

          • #77071
            Joe (G.W.N.S.)
            Moderator

              You mention how this type of insurgency is basically unprecedented. I’m no expert on the issue but how would you rate the Irish conflict of the last century? Does that fit in this vein of consideration? Thanks for the reasoned thoughts here. So much of what is written on the subject comes across poorly.

              The Irish were trying to remove a foreign power and for the most part they were successful with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty on 6 December 1921. Michael Collins had argued that the treaty would give “the freedom to achieve freedom”.

              However many disagreed and there was a split over the Treaty that eventually led to the Irish Civil War (1922–23). The conflict was waged between two opposing groups of Irish republicans over the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The forces of the “Provisional Government” (which became the Free State in December 1922) supported the Treaty, while the Republican opposition saw it as a betrayal of the Irish Republic (which had been proclaimed during the Easter Rising). Many of those who fought in the conflict had been members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) during the War of Independence.

              The Irish Civil War after Irish War of Independence should be a cautionary tale for anyone thinking about possible insurgencies.

              One thought is you may want some sort of super majority when voting to accept any Treaty that hasn’t met expectations of those involved.

              Note: This is a very brief overview of events, it would take several months to go over the various nuisances of that conflict.

              There are many lessons learned that are applicable, but many differences.

            • #77072
              Joe (G.W.N.S.)
              Moderator

                I submit it would be impossible to drive out the current political force without removing financial oppression.

                For me impossible is too strong a word, although resources are a consideration.

                The current Political and Bureaucratic powers have never suffered for their actions, sure they might not get reelected or get early retirement, but for the most part that’s as rough as it gets.

                I think this suffering could break the resolve of many in power.

                The financial solvency of government is a factor, but that should take care of its self soon enough.

                FREEFOR will need something like this in order to survive. Before any widespread ops take place, FREEFOR must be able to operate outside the financial infrastructure…

                Don’t think we will have much say in that, tangibles and precious metals will have to suffice short term.

                I believe individuals and small groups can prepare, but if any kind of large organization were to prepare for this type of contingency it would be destroyed in short order.

              • #77073
                M1-Guy
                Participant

                  D Close are very good post. If you are of the mind that a financial collapse is the most likely event, I do not believe a rapid decline will occur (unless something else occurs to accelerate it). The decline, given conditions as they currently exist, will be a slow walk, to what will end up fascism/totalitarianism of some sort. Why? Because a slow decline will keep the sheeple in line, and over time make them more dependent on .gov as they parcel out scarce resources AND because .gov knows the numbers don’t work. There is no realistic way to get the books in balance based on GDP growth, budget cuts, etc. without causing quick financial decline. Gov knows this, they need to manage it. So the economy will twist slowly in the wind. More will become dependent on the .gov. Look at southern Europe. 25% unemployment and NO riots in the streets. Why? The EU is printing and distributing “benefits” to essentially buy the peace.

                  What about currency crisis? Since no currency is backed by any thing (we went off the gold standard in the early 70’s) but the full faith and credit of the gov, the currencies are valued against each other not against collateral. The USD is the best house in a bad neighborhood and will remain strong relative to the other currencies because of the business environment here (again this is relative) and stability of government (not quality). The US Gov owes money to everybody in sight, so we will borrow and print money until we can’t. I just believe it will be a slow process, again barring an accelerant.

                  If in fact this is a slow financial decline then those of us that would be FREEFOR will find ourselves becoming a small minority and ultimately marginalized because more and more people will be and want to look to the .gov for answers. I can truly see how that would be the plan. Progressives/Liberals are very patient and grind it out over the long term. It has worked so far.

                  So before I get hammered for being negative, I am realistic. I just see things for what they are and don’t see how it gets turned around other than the people I see here and hopes we can increase our numbers. Doesn’t mean I have given in. The OPFOR has the momentum and has had it for a while.

                • #77074
                  Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                  Moderator

                    The U.S. government financial situation is not fixable, doesn’t matter who is in charge.

                    They will definitely try to manage a slow fall, doesn’t mean it will work out that way, but try they will.

                    The financial solvency of government is a factor, but that should take care of itself soon enough.

                    Just to clarify “take care of itself” in this case means collapse.

                    I don’t believe it will be controlled, but there are plenty of opportunities for other major problems before this occurs.

                  • #77075
                    D Close
                    Moderator

                      GWNS, I see your points, all valid. The suffering factor…how to apply without becoming vulnerable to propaganda exploitation, i.e., negative labeling? A hypothetical insurgency will have to masterfully use propaganda to expose the hypocrisy of the regime and the righteousness of their cause. Every act must have a specific, targeted purpose that advances the cause. “So and so was found guilty of crimes against BoR, Amdmt 1. He was punished accordingly.” All this must be grounded in the rule of law. Who will make such a finding? Authority must be granted to carry out sentences. Does a four man cell have such authority? In my view, there must be a political, or overt, wing of resistance. The military wing, the covert arm, must take direction, at least in part, from the political. Legitimacy demands it. As far as I can tell, every successful insurgency has been structured with that in mind. Shadow government, shadow courts, free from the regime control soon take on legitimacy in a vacuum.

                      Self-defense never needs additional legitimacy. Justice requires it. Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed. How will an insurgency capture that? In the Western world, one way is to expose the high level of corruption and cloaked tyranny for all to see, as well as demonstrating an alternative based on the rule of law.

                      There have been attempts to do this in recent history, even in the US. As the vacuum becomes stronger, these attempts may bear fruit.

                      The most overlooked aspect to such an insurgency is the offering of an effective alternative to current regime’s government. This needs to be addressed and disseminated to the target population

                      That’s it, right there.

                    • #77076
                      Corvette
                      Participant

                        I have a short-ish attention span … Sorry.

                        My thoughts , and I think I picked up threads like it above is :

                        If a hypothetical alternate universe tyrannical government crossed a certain line – then the resistance would need

                        A. Media outlet to explain its actions
                        B. targeting of political and bureaucratic enemies of our Constitution and its original intent , in order for them to experience the pain of what they would have others do for them.
                        C. And enough follow through to make anyone who would seek office fear violating their oath of office , or being a lying corrupt POS.
                        D. An infrastructure that was very hard to root out or behead.

                        No?

                        This of course omits that whole logistical nightmare of scoring coffee and breakfast every day.

                        Makes me wonder if training in the woods is might be possibly seen as a building block to urban / suburban resistance.

                      • #77077
                        Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                        Moderator

                          My thoughts , and I think I picked up threads like it above is :

                          If a hypothetical alternate universe tyrannical government crossed a certain line – then the resistance would need…

                          If you thought all you needed was a rifle, some training, and a few caches in the woods and you would be ready follow the path of our Founding Fathers?

                          Nope! Above basics are certainly helpful, there’s just more to it.

                          It was a difficult undertaking 238 years ago, it hasn’t gotten easier!

                        • #77078
                          Corvette
                          Participant

                            Of course not knowing what exactly one is training for makes things a bit murkier as well.

                            Our Government coming after us ?
                            Our government being overthrown by radical leftys and coming for us ?
                            Our country being invaded by China/Mexico/Russia ?
                            Our Federal Government having a USSR style seizure and quitting ?
                            An ICBM delivered EMP ?
                            Sudden Catastrophic economic meltdown and social chaos ?
                            An old fashioned secession war between the states ?
                            South African style racial violence on a national level ?

                            I’m going to stick with training with friends in the woods and “wing it ” from there , at least at this point in the game.

                            I do know we are on a downhill economic road with bad brakes and the bridge is out.

                            I know what my ancestors tried to build in the Revolutionary War isn’t working lately. We are one more president away from needing a permit to join a forum like this , the second amendment is under constant threat , trial by jury is over in this day of ” plea bargain or face complete destruction ” , half of my income goes to taxes , … We’ve all got the same complaints …

                            We need to network , yes. We need to be on the same page – I vote for the Constitution and a harsh Libertarian review of anything that hints at a free lunch in any way. But something radical has to change for it to ever work.

                            We all know something bad is coming. But I despair of seeing it through to something good.

                          • #77079
                            Corvette
                            Participant

                              I still say that the best and most assured way to Liberty within our lifetimes is to do this at the state level. Secession is the answer. There’s built-in legitimacy, built in legality, and we’re still going to have to fight a war. But we’re going to do it alongside our neighbors who are more willing to fight for the cause of a Republic of Texas or Wyoming or North Carolina or Jefferson or Northern Colorado or Idaho or Montana.

                              I think some individuals are thinking too small. GWNS hit the nail on the head – we have to have a better alternative. A few hundred guys targeting the local statists is mad, they don’t own a viable, national media outlet, they don’t have any resources to speak of, and eventually they’re going to quit when everyone – from federal to state to local – has turned against them.

                              Sheesh. Let’s learn some lessons from Afghanistan. Without a legitimate, recognized and supported political body, all you are is a terrorist. And that’s all you’ll ever be without an established political authority.

                            • #77080
                              Corvette
                              Participant

                                I want Liberty just as much as the next guy, but all this unilateral action stuff is the wrong direction. Secession is the only way you’re going to win. And from a warfighter perspective, being on the side of designating targets and launching raids and missiles against insurgents – we stand a much, much better chance at winning a war initiated by secession than we do of onesies and twosies outlasting a world superpower on their own turf until 5-20 years later coming to the negotiating table to win back the peace.

                                Let’s be realistic.

                              • #77081
                                Corvette
                                Participant

                                  Sheesh. Let’s learn some lessons from Afghanistan. Without a legitimate, recognized and supported political body, all you are is a terrorist. And that’s all you’ll ever be without an established political authority.

                                  Sam you make valid points as usual.
                                  However allow me to introduce a wrinkle:

                                  The insurgents in Afghanistan are not doing too badly even tough they have no external support, tenuous legitimacy and are fighting a major nation-state military w/o split loyalties and whose families do not live in country.

                                  Yet they are doing it and are doing it well.

                                  Now imagine those half individual dozen points in their disfavor (that are explicit or implied in my summary above) removed and you realize there are many roads to the restoration.

                                  (Having said all that, your state based solution is still sound for the reasons you outlined)

                                • #77082
                                  Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                  Moderator

                                    Secession is the answer. There’s built-in legitimacy, built in legality, and we’re still going to have to fight a war.

                                    Much of what I wrote works for many scenarios, but I’ll address my in depth thoughts on Secession in a different thread. I am not against a Succession movement, but addressing contingencies if such Succession never materializes is also a consideration to cover all bases.

                                    …all this unilateral action stuff is the wrong direction.

                                    Agreed, but a understanding of worst case options is still needed. It amazes me that how little understanding of what Revolutions, Civil Wars, and Insurgencies involve. Especially the need for a Political Face to address people.

                                    I am not quite as pessimistic about Political Insurgencies chance of success as Sam, however his time frame 5-20 years is historically accurate.

                                    …outlasting a world superpower on their own turf…

                                    There is a very good chance such a description of U.S. may not be valid by the time things would have reached point of possible insurgent operations.

                                    I have discussed the contingency of sailing off to blue-green waters to some. Many of course think this is running away! Yes, but when I start discussing all that would entail a successful insurgency or succession and their eyes get that glassed over look as though I am speaking a foreign language. I begin to think sailing away is only realistic option.

                                    Max, Mosby, Culper, and a few others give me hope that if it gets to that point, there will be a reason for staying other than death. I do not mind spending my life for Freedom, but I will not knowingly waste my life for it.

                                    Ultimately there are two points of consideration that cover deaths in combat.

                                    Lives that were spent on the battlefield and lives that were wasted on the battlefield!

                                    The spending of lives is a costly but necessary part of armed conflict.

                                    The wasting of lives due to incompetence, lack of planning, and arrogance to name a few. This is an unnecessary part of armed conflict that unfortunately happens far too often.

                                    Ignoring the role of Intelligence, the concepts behind it, and the products it provides will directly lead to Lives Wasted!

                                  • #77083
                                    Corvette
                                    Participant

                                      <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”><a href=”http://forum.maxvelocitytactical.com/forums/topic/hypothetical-insurgent-operations-in-modern-western-nations/#post-5457&#8243;

                                      The insurgents in Afghanistan are not doing too badly even tough they have no external support, tenuous legitimacy and are fighting a major nation-state military w/o split loyalties and whose families do not live in country.

                                      Yet they are doing it and are doing it well.

                                      The Taliban do have external support. They benefit from Pakistani ISI, Pakistani support zones, Pakistani funding, and foreign fighter facilitation, not to mention some Iranian support.

                                      I agree with tenuous legitimacy, but look what they’ve done with Karzai. They’re negotiating their way back into “official” government. But in many places the Taliban shadow government is more recognized by the populace.

                                      The Taliban aren’t doing well. They’ve lost from 13,000-30,0000 fighters. The age of the average Taliban dropped from 35 to 23 in ten years of fighting; that’s basically an entire generation obliterated.

                                      On average, 12 Taliban fighters are killed each day. There’s an old Pashtun saying, “You may have the watches, but we have the time.” The only reason they’ve lasted this long is because they and everyone else in SW Asia knew we were leaving at some point. Otherwise, we’ve wiped the floor with the Taliban.

                                      So people say that the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan. It’s true but not for the reasons most think. The ONLY reason the Taliban are still around is because they held out. And as soon as we leave, they’ll kill Karzai or whoever replaces him, and start to take back power.

                                    • #77084
                                      Corvette
                                      Participant

                                        GWNS, I’m willing to accept that secession never materializes, however, I think it grows more likely with the prospect of Balkanization. I think we’re staring down an economic collapse – probably not Armageddon but still bad enough – and I think the States are going to come into realizing that secession is a more viable solution than sinking outright with the ship.

                                        There are going to be grassroots efforts to draft ordinances of secession; there’s clearly a legal basis and historical precedent. Basically everything the unilateral guys lack, the state can provide.

                                        I would much rather defend my State against federal incursion than go it alone with my local yokels and face a wasted death. My neighbors would rather defend our state, and Patriots across the region would rather band together in defense of a State. Our States are a major unifying cause, especially when State leaders vow to resist the federal government.

                                        So I think we should all keep learning about hypothetical and historical guerrilla wars and not engage in ANY extrajudicial action. We’ll need to put that expertise in guerrilla action to good one day but only in defense of a lawful political body.

                                        When it comes to defending our state, we’re going to enlist more people, have more support, clearly attain the moral high ground, and be recognized as having the moral high ground.

                                        At any rate, not everyone likes that idea but I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not as glamorous and it’s actually more difficult, but it’s likely to afford us a greater likelihood of success. And if we have one shot to git ‘er done, let’s play to our strengths.

                                      • #77085
                                        Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                        Moderator

                                          GWNS, I’m willing to accept that secession never materializes, however, I think it grows more likely with the prospect of Balkanization.

                                          I am not saying it can’t or won’t happen, just big into considering all reasonable contingencies.

                                          So I think we should all keep learning about hypothetical and historical guerrilla wars and not engage in ANY extrajudicial action. We’ll need to put that expertise in guerrilla action to good one day but only in defense of a lawful political body.

                                          No argument from me. Although what could be extrajudicial action can be blurred by a legitimate self defense response to Federal actions.

                                          …it’s not as glamorous and it’s actually more difficult

                                          In this case glamor is only for Hollywood and the ignorant.

                                        • #77086
                                          Max
                                          Keymaster

                                            (reply is not from Max)

                                            D_Close…I think you may be surprised how well Bitcoin will work soon – at least in the short term. It will likely be co-opted in time as it’s success becomes problematic to those who control global purse strings. Right now you can go in and out of digital cash in >13 different currencies, and, in and out of your “paper” [cash] too (depending on where your “bank” is located). I suggest keeping BTC on a smart card you lock with a finger on the 8TM. It’s called match-on-card . Lose the card & lose your money (just like cash), but, it’s portable, reliable and one form of moving “value” around fluidly.

                                            I know. I’m working on it. 24/7. My contribution to the cause. $30m worth.

                                            And, a friend of mine just produced his first major movie with the profits he made in 2 years – >$2million. Beats hauling gold coins around IMO. A carbon fiber smart card can be had in quantity for $1.

                                          • #77087
                                            D Close
                                            Moderator

                                              8TM, I hear you. I see a short term funding transfer utility but worry about the risk. I realize there is no perfect solution. An insurgency would not be looking for yield but anonymity and stability. Right now, it seems vulnerable in those areas. Not a BITCOIN hater. I like the card idea.

                                          Viewing 19 reply threads
                                          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.