The Vietcong was a governing organization as much as it was a military force. So was the Taliban. And their home court advantage comes from knowing tactics and terrain that are unfamiliar to the invading force. A jungle or a desert or caves are all different from middle America, which is not anything close to unfamiliar terrain in the sense of those former environments. A middle American with a little firearms training is nothing like a Viet Cong or Taliban guerilla, and knows little that is unfamiliar to the American military, besides being less trained.
at a macro level there would be no particular advantage but at a local level in america the residents of a locality would still would have the advantage over non resident, non local soldier, especially in urban warfare and rural forested areas
as far as the government part, you can have that, i dont think thats important either way
No, they don't always run when confronted. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. They run when confronted in a context where they don't have a distinct advantage, like open fighting on flat terrain. That is only one of the contexts of battle, though. Their purpose is the same as the purpose of any army- to destroy and demoralize their opponents until they give up. They just choose their terms of engagement carefully. When you're fighting at a technological disadvantage, among others, those tactics are essential.
hmm im getting that from what ive read, direct confrontation was not a tactic used by insurgents, they used guerrilla tactics, i dont like using a word like always, but insurgents in iraq and afghanistan are known for running when it gets hot, im not questioning their manhood its really because of lack of training and discipline
vietnam was different tho, i would describe the vietcong as fierce, i would not describe iraqi and afghan insurgents as fierce warriors
and you dont have to explain the concepts of guerilla tactics and asymmetrical warfare to me i understand that
but im glad you brought it up because the thing you have to understand about guerilla tactics (and the beauty of it) and asymmetrical warfare is that they do not require "fierce warriors"
it simply requires anybody that knows how to shoot a gun and jump in the bushes.....in other words the fat pasty fuks in the corny miltias all of a sudden become dangerous when they resort to guerrilla tactics, guerilla tactics do not require you to be a fierce warrior because by definition you want to avoid any direct confrontation
i think this is where the confusion is, you guys seem to think that a battle between the us army and civilians would consist of a direct confrontation, and its about some fat fuks with rifles verses machine guns and tanks, that is not a realistic premise, realistically a war between the us army and us civilians would immediately turn into a guerrilla war which would render the us army advantages useless and to defeat guerrillas you need the civilian population on your side
and all the examples we are using are unarmed populations, im not aware of any society that is as armed as the US where guns outnumber people.......oh wait...except maybe the borderlands of pakistan, where both the us army and Pakistani army are afraid to go, cuz they know it will be a slaughterhouse if they do
They are fierce. The implication that they are not real opponents is very misguided.
in a way they are fierce in other ways they arent, i wouldnt use the word fierce because it implies some type of physical mano a mano type of combat, but that isnt the reality of modern warfare
the reality is that the chances of a us soldier getting killed in iraq and afghanistan was very small, even now the biggest threat for a us soldier is suicide and ieds, not an actual insurgent running up on you
the real opponent/friend of the us soldier that will decide the outcome of wars is the civilian population, a war between the us army and civilians will end up being decided by who the civilians side with just like in vietnam, iraq and afghansitan
