Historians: Military ever defeat terrorism?

Since I am posting this in the Cafe...let's please not do any discussion of politics or left & right, etc.

Here is the one simple question I am trying to research:

Has there ever been a case where terrorism was defeated by the use of military action? Can a standing army "defeat" terrorists?

Terrorism was rampant in Northern Ireland for decades. Now, that seems to have stopped. How did it get defeated?

There have been many cases of invading armies facing relentless terrorism from the local population (WWII French resistance, etc.). I don't think any of the examples like that were "defeated" by the invading armies.

Anybody got meaningful events for me to start the research on this?
Links to internet sources would be especially appreciated!

You might want give your definition of "terrorism".

I think it's force directed against "soft targets" (non-military or non-government) to create fear, confusion and general disorganization.

I don't view the French Resistence, the Viet Minh/Cong or Mujahideen as terrorists (there are certainly exceptions). They were paramilitary organizations that pretty much focused on military and government targets, instead of soft civilian targets.

Again, there are certainly exceptions where the above groups did attack soft targets, particularly the VC.

Are the current bad guys in Iraq terrorists? By my definition, it would depend on the target -- attacking military and police would be a no -- attacking a wedding party would be a big yes.

Perplexing world we're living in. And remember, history is written by the winners.

The only "successful" counter-insurgency operations I can think of in modern times were undertaken by the British: the Mau Mau Uprising, and the Mayalan Emergency. Ultimately, even though the insurgents were defeated, the British ended up leaving their colonial holdings.

You might want to check out some of the stuff written by Bruce Hoffman, of the RAND Corporation. I've heard those on the right denounce the RAND Corporation as a tool of the satanic New World Order conspiracy, and those on the left denounce it as an evil pawn of the military-industrial complex. Regardless of your political stance, I think his monographs will be relevant to your question:

http://www.rand.org/multi/ctrmp/staff/hoffman.html

There have been some good articles in The Atlantic recently about this topic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/waronterror/

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200510/kaplan-us-special-forces

One caveat: the editorial board of The Atlantic is not particularly optimistic about a conventional military solution succeeding in The War on Terror. You should not, however, automatically lump them in with the "cut and run" straw men constructed by pundits, politicians, and media commentators.

IMO (which you should also take with a molecule of salt), I think Carl von Clausewitz's statement that "war is a continuation of politics" is particularly relevant. Historical precedent suggests that we are unlikely to defeat terrorism by pure military force, but also that diplomacy is worthless unless utilized from a position of strength.

I remember hearing some pundit talking about the successful defeat of an insurgency verging on civil war in a southeast Asian country decades ago ... I want to say it was Malyasia (I could be mistaken). The key component of the government strategy seems to have been the construction of an all-weather road network throughout the country; previously many parts of the country were isolated during the rainy season due to impassable roads (or trails). This not only allowed the Army to move quickly throught the country, but tremendously benefited the very folks likely to be sympathetic to the insurgents. The road network lifted the overall level of prosperity in the country, undermining the core motives of both the insurgents and their sympathisers.

Also important to the government strategy: use just enough force to put doen the insurgency rather than try to decisively to wipe it out in every action. This eliminates needless "collateral damage" if nothing else and communicates to the enemy that things will operate on the government's timetable - you're a nuisance to be dealt with at the right time instead of a real threat.



I don't know that an occupying force has ever managed to occupy hostile territorry and successfully install a self-sustaining, stable, friendly government after defeating a local insurgency. It would seem that people everywhere would prefer bad government by their own to good government by foreigners... foreigners that will probably always be seen as occupiers by enough of the population to sustain an insurgency.

Another interesting question is whether "terrorists" (and again, I use the term as people attacking "soft" or civilian targets and not military ones) has ever defeated a standing army.

BIGIRON said:

You might want give your definition of "terrorism".

Click to expand...

I'll go with the "soft targets" type... as in the IRA blowing up a restaurant, etc.

BIGIRON said:

...history is written by the winners.

Click to expand...

Yes. That is certainly true.

You could argue that the "terrorism" of our own, native American Indians of attacking wagon trains or homesteads was finally defeated militarily. The U.S. military was only able to do that by complete, total repression of a society and by near elimination of its people (along with their food sources). Outside of this, I can't think of an example where "terrorism" was stopped by the military.

BTW... I don't condone what was done to our native Americans. It is just an objective observation of what it took to stop their attacks.

You'll have to forgive me for my bad memory, but wasn't there some terrorist business in a French colony back in the '50s? I had thought the French defeated them, although it was a bloody fight.

idleprocess said:

...key component of the government strategy seems to have been the construction of an all-weather road network throughout the country; previously many parts of the country were isolated during the rainy season due to impassable roads (or trails). This not only allowed the Army to move quickly throught the country, but tremendously benefited the very folks likely to be sympathetic to the insurgents. The road network lifted the overall level of prosperity in the country, undermining the core motives of both the insurgents and their sympathisers.

Click to expand...

This seems likely to me...in regard to "undermining the core motives".

I don't think I regard that as a military victory. Removing the reason that terrorists get support from a broad segment of the population seems like a successful strategy (although not a fundamentally "military" strategy).

James S said:

Another interesting question is whether "terrorists" (and again, I use the term as people attacking "soft" or civilian targets and not military ones) has ever defeated a standing army.

Click to expand...

I guess the answer to this really does depend on the definition of defeat.

I know the French left Algeria after long, sustained acts of terrorism. So... does that qualify as the "standing army" being "defeated"? I don't know.

ikendu said:

This seems likely to me...in regard to "undermining the core motives".

I don't think I regard that as a military victory. Removing the reason that terrorists get support from a broad segment of the population seems like a successful strategy (although not a fundamentally "military" strategy).

Click to expand...

Rarely is defeating an insurgency solely a military victory. You must whittle away at their base of support amongst the populace - find the magic percentage of sympathisers that can sustain an insurgency and steadily reduce that percentage by addressing their grievances wherever possible. Improving quality of life is a general thing that can be done to this end since nearly all conflicts have material roots.

idleprocess said:

I Also important to the government strategy: use just enough force to put doen the insurgency rather than try to decisively to wipe it out in every action. This eliminates needless "collateral damage" if nothing else and communicates to the enemy that things will operate on the government's timetable - you're a nuisance to be dealt with at the right time instead of a real threat.

Click to expand...

And I'll add that heavy-handed use of force against insurgents will tend to swing many otherwise neutral people to their side. Witness the recent cases of the Israeli army versus Palestinian terrorists for example. Their heavy-handed tactices generated worldwide support for the Palestinians.

James S said:

Another interesting question is whether "terrorists" (and again, I use the term as people attacking "soft" or civilian targets and not military ones) has ever defeated a standing army.

Click to expand...

interesting Idea. I guess you have to look at what their idea of winning means. Usually terrorists attacking soft targets are not trying to get rid of a standing army, but to make a change. Unless that change is to get rid of a standing army, in which attacking civillians does not really help that cause in my thoughts. So I guess if terrorists defeat a actual army, in their mind they did not win the war, they just have more time to make the change that they want, which is their real war.

I'm probably completely wrong on this, but o well.

ikendu, if you are serious about understanding how we should be fighting The War on Terror, you need to read Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz.

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm

I'm not trying to be snarky by answering with a "you n00bs are teh suxx0rs, read this" reply. Several posters (including myself) have repeated the theme that military force is insufficient to defeat terrorists/insurgents (whatever you want to call them), and that a multifaceted approach is needed. They engage in asymmetric warfare simply because they know they cannot prevail in conventional warfare against US forces. Military force is not an end unto itself, it is a means to achieve an outcome that for whatever reason could not be achieved through political or diplomatic means.

I'm hesitant to recommend Wikipedia as a primary source, but it's a good launching point to start your research. Here's their entry on the Malayan Emergency mentioned by idleprocess above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

From what I remember, both Ecuador and Perú were able to supress guerrilla groups (which used terrorist tactics; bombings, kidnappings, killings, etc. -could they be labeled "terrorists" these days? :thinking through lengthy military operations (took years).

idleprocess said:

I don't know that an occupying force has ever managed to occupy hostile territorry and successfully install a self-sustaining, stable, friendly government after defeating a local insurgency.

Click to expand...

The Romans did this routinely.

idleprocess said:

It would seem that people everywhere would prefer bad government by their own to good government by foreigners... foreigners that will probably always be seen as occupiers by enough of the population to sustain an insurgency.

Click to expand...

When a roman province got too uppity they would go in and decimate the place (the original meaning of "decimate" was to kill one out of every ten ) or if that failed they might come back and kill every male, or if they got really annoyed just kill or take slave every man woman and child in the area. Problem solved. Nowadays some (not all) countries would consider this excessive.

"The success of the Mongol conquests should also be attributed at least in part to two other factors. One was military intelligence. The Mongols had a extensive network of spies and usually had extensive information of an enemy before they engaged them in battle. The other was their use of psychological warfare. Much is made of the total destruction of cities in Central Asia by the Mongols. What is normally overlooked, however, is that this was more of an exception than a rule. If a city capitulated, Ghengis Khan was usually content to let them be, once their defences had been pulled down. Only those who resisted faced the sword. This not only wiped out resistance, but more importantly, word quickly spread of the wrath of Ghengis Khan, and many peoples found it easier to submit than to resist."

All who surrender will be spared;
whoever does not surrender but opposes with struggle and dissension,
shall be annihilated.
--Genghis Khan

http://www.greenkiwi.co.nz/footprints/mongolia/ghengis_history.htm

In Ireland, it's one ISLAND and been that way for centuries, and the some other country invades you and takes over the northern part of your island. Then you, the IRA, are labelled as the "terrorists". I don't get it.

Then again, the winners always write (or re-write) history.

hector said:

In Ireland, it's one ISLAND and been that way for centuries, and the some other country invades you and takes over the northern part of your island. Then you, the IRA, are labelled as the "terrorists". I don't get it.

Then again, the winners always write (or re-write) history.

Click to expand...

Yes. That is also true. Doesn't seem fair.
After all, invading armies (certainly today) also knowingly kill civilians in collateral damage.
They don't plan to do it (I don't believe), but it happens and they know it will.

The civilians are just as dead either way. It makes it all the harder to "win the hearts and minds" of a local populace if you are knowingly killing innocent civilians including women and children. The missile strikes by the Israelis against a home where they suspect a known "terrorist" to reside but kills all that are in the home are like this. I believe such strikes work against them. If you lose a young child that is your niece or nephew in such a strike, it may be a long time before your heart or your mind will be won over.

Maybe it's because the Irish are more similar to us mongrel Americans than the Jews and Muslims in and around Israel, but I've always felt a lot more sympathetic towards the IRA (in regards to not calling them terrorists) than the Israel conflict.

Not to say that area didn't have very questionable decisions made during the mid part of the last century but I guess I personally see the situation in Israel as a survival of the fittest with many, many innocents killed along the way.

From the 1913 webster's Dictionary

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a
mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
[1913 Webster]

Click to expand...

A mode of government????

I think the point was made that terrorists AKA insurgents AKA freedom fighters don't defeat conventional armies. They simply make it too expensive to continue the fight. That's expensive in lost lives, materials, money. At some point it's just not worth it.

The modern fighter has tools that the indians and the Roman subjects did not have. A modern weapon allows one man in ambush to be as effective as a whole regiment of the 19th century. On the otehr hand, a single fighter hidden within a "friendly" populace is very difficult to eleminate using modern weapons of war. A cluster bomb is mighty effective, but can't be used in a city of innocents.

In effect, the guerrilla fighter is much more effective than the conventional soldier. Everything is a valid target for the guerrilla.

I guess what I'm saying is that the past is not a valid predictor of the future.