I recently had a casual debate with a person over a somewhat controversial idea based on history... Now I say casual because: 1- that person was a good friend of mine and we could never be super heated over such a trivial subject (literally-trivial) 2- neither of us are majors in the subject we were discussing. Well that's not entirely true, because I am a minor in the topic- which was history. An early advantage to me, right!?
Now I know right about now you are reading this and are thinking "Who the hell minors in history? What are you trying to be, a high school teacher!?" No. After realizing how much of an annoying pinhead I was in high school, there is not a chance in the world that I would task myself with molding young minds, yet alone deal with idiots. Those who do, however, are the key to our country's success. (or demise...) I doubt I could handle the future of the most powerful country on Earth.. Yikes.
Anyway, we were discussing the American situation in the Middle East, and the argument was if history was cyclical or linear.
If you are by chance a history major/minor, then I am sure you have had that professor who starts off every term with this discussion. I've had teachers argue both sides. This only makes the argument more interesting to me.
For the sake of, well, you, I'll limit historical examples to strictly what we were arguing about.
We were discussing the fact of guerrilla warfare, and why the mighty American military struggles to contain and suppress a relatively weak force in the Taliban/Al Qaeda insurgency.
I argued that success against guerrilla warfare is a very difficult feat to pull off, and historically, this has been the case.
Perhaps the most prevalent example of guerrilla warfare which is taught in every school at every level is the American Revolutionary War. Take the British military- a highly trained and professional fighting force- and put them up against a rat-pack of farmers, teenagers, preachers and militia men. A massacre would ensue- on a conventional battlefield. The British were armed better, equipped better, and led better. The newly proclaimed "Americans" knew this. Guess what? So does the Insurgency in the Middle East. The Patriots played to their advantages, which were excellent marksmanship, knowledge of the local terrain; and above all, a deeper desire to win their freedom.
Now I am not saying that our American fighting force has no desire to win or to protect freedom. What I am saying, however, is that like the British, our fighting force are paid professionals who are there to do their job, receive pay, and return home to their families.
No regard for human life certainly wins the war when it is a war of attrition.
There are many similarities between the Insurgency and our American Revolutionaries. The Revolutionaries won their fight because of their advantages (and I hate to say it, but a little help from those French bastards)
The insurgency has not been completely eradicated because of their tactics as well. A force who ambushes and retreats is insanely hard to defeat, as shown by:
1. American Revolutionary War
2. Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan (1970s)
3. French resistance in Nazi-Occupied France in WW2
4. Soviet urban warfare in Stalingrad vs. German Army in WW2 (and a little help from mother mature)
Also many others, but these are perhaps the most obvious and best examples.
In this case, history is undoubtedly cyclical. All of these instances pitted a borderline desperate force against a much larger one, and the one with less to lose came out on top....
I'm out of time but there's just a little food for thought. The one with the most stunning similarity to our current situation is the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. I encourage you to just wikipedia the topic- super crazy to see how similar it is to our war. Any thoughts on this are more than welcome! Have a nice day.
