Q&A: A Strong Army versus a Weak One
A Strong Army versus a Weak One
Question
Between 1954 and 1962, the French fought against the Algerians. The French army was far stronger than the barefoot Algerian rebels, and yet the Algerians won and the French withdrew, together with about 900,000 French civilians who lost everything and started new lives in France. A short time later, the Americans began the Vietnam War. Again, the Americans were much stronger and the Vietnamese were the barefoot ones. It was the Americans who withdrew and were defeated. After that, the Americans were defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians too were defeated in Afghanistan. It turns out that a strong regular army is generally defeated by guerrilla fighters.
Also here, with the IDF, that is the situation. The IDF is ostensibly stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah combined, but it finds itself in a tie with both of them. Against this background, it seems to me that Yisrael Ziv understands the situation, and it may very well be that a long war is not in Israel’s favor. In my opinion, it is doubtful whether Israel will survive against the guerrilla fighters operating against it.
A book that explains how regular armies are beaten by guerrilla fighters (and other things about wars):
Martin van Creveld: The Transformation of War
Best regards,
Answer
I disagree with these analogies. There is no similarity at all. There, there was no existential danger to the power with the army, and the war was being conducted far from home. The territory was much larger and the conditions were much harder. Here, there is no great problem in winning. We are already almost there. It is only a question of determination and perseverance.
Discussion on Answer
You’re just playing with words. The U.S. decided it wasn’t worth it, and therefore it was defeated. There is always a reason for defeat—either you didn’t have enough equipment, or enough soldiers, or enough fighting spirit, or it just wasn’t worth fighting.
The United States was not defeated in Vietnam or in Afghanistan. If it had wanted to, it could have kept fighting in Vietnam to this very day. It is all a question of cost versus benefit. At a certain point, the Americans started asking themselves whether it was worth killing so many soldiers and so many Vietnamese civilians so that South Vietnam (which in any case was not democratic) would not fall into the hands of the communists. In the end, the North conquered the South only after the United States decided to remove all its forces from Vietnam, and not a moment earlier. The situation is quite similar in Afghanistan: at no stage did the Taliban manage to capture territory and rout the American forces.
In the end, the strength of guerrilla warfare is that they do not accept the rules of a regular army, where once territory is captured that counts as victory for the enemy. In addition, they are very good at wearing the enemy down.