With that being said, what makes insurgent groups hard to defeat/eradicate?
We see this with the IDF, the US Military, etc

>>510674390 (OP)
Fuck off kike

>>510674609
I just said the IDF is doing shitty

>>510674390 (OP)
'wars are not meant to be won or lost, just sustained '

Insurgency is only a threat to occupation and administration. If you want to take and hold land, it can be achieved by a seasoned, well-supplied force like the US military. But trying to manage the host population with some degree of civility is nearly impossible. The north of Ireland as an example.

You'll note the IDF has no issues with insurgency because there are no civilians to deal with.

>>510674869
>no civilians to deal with
Excellent bait

>>510674390 (OP)
No it's only insurgents in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam where their local landscape is torment on anyone not from there

Insurgents in Europe, russia and north america were all easily dealt with
>isis in syria
Isis was funded and maintained by US and US proxies
>US war on iraq
The us went to war against the whole country civilians and military the entire country was Fighting against America
>Libya
Funded and organized by foreign powers to overthrow gadaffi

All insurgents in north Africa are gone now

>>510675109
Interesting
Thanks

>>510674390 (OP)
The real issue with insurgents is the gay politics when it comes to occupying but not occupying foreign territory.
The Romans never had to deal with insurgencies, the tribes that tried were simply eradicated.

>>510674390 (OP)
I don't know about you guys but I have a very hard time defecating insurgents, it takes a really long time no matter how hard I push

>>510675109
The Vietnam war was not a insurgency. On the field NVA were comparable in strength to Americans forces, look at the battle of Khe Sanh.
Any insurgent cells in south Vietnam were eradicated in the failed Tet offensive and never regained the strength from pre-68.
>Does this really matter
Absolutely, the US lost a war not to backwater villagers, but to competent and well trained fighters with the backing of Russia and China.

>>510674390 (OP)
Unpaid religious fanatics with old black market rpg-7's and rusty modified toyotas are very cheap. The longer and more agressively the US invasion of their country, the more fanatics are created

To stage this invasion as a professional army and haul a constant flow of personel, high tech equipment, supplies and ammo to the other side of the world is very expensive and not sustainable for very long

>>510674390 (OP)
1 they have nothing to lose
2 the occupying force is always working at domination, the insurgent force live there and insurgency is like a bonus thing to do when the opportunity arises, this is less tirng (i know this worded shitly deal with it)
>>510675109
what are you talking about? spanish civil war? then you're wrong. ww2? only really applies to france and half wrong

If they enjoy popular support then it's basically impossible to get rid of them all, because they can just melt away into the civilian population and every one you kill creates 5 more in the form of people who want revenge for their friends and family. The only solution is either cracking down with such brutality that the civilian population becomes afraid of aiding them, or negotiating a ceasefire with them. I'm sure there are nerds at the DoD who think muh palantir will provide the solution to this problem but it really doesn't take a genius to defeat most forms of electronic surveillance, especially when you're dealing with the comparatively piecemeal electronic information-spaces of Thirdieland, so I think they'd end up disappointed in the results