Psychology of Guerrilla War

You have given some good global examples of guerilla movements, let me try and bring you back to our local scene. What would your opinion be of “guerilla” movements in Baluchistan against the government in Islamabad or against Pakistan itself? How about a Taliban style state in the tribal areas with its capital at Wana? What would you consider an organization like Lashkar e Jhangvi with the express aim of eliminating Shiites because they are vajibul qutl (I am oversimplifying it) and setting up their own regime through an “Islamic revolution”. What I am implying is an extremist point of view for which there is no shortage in our part of the world which may be held by a very tiny group but with the power now for even a very small group to cause massive mayhem what do you do. Best of all lest we forget, our reaction to the East Pakistanis on their independence movement which took place through a free and fair election – and we reduced them into the Mukti Bahini and getting into the arms of India.

Good examples of societies which have resolved their conflicts well with peace are the split between Czech and Slovak republics. It is not clear had there been a referendum if there would have been enough votes for a split. But best of all is the example of Canada where there was a huge movement in Quebec to separate, and could have easily gotten out of hand. But it was the referendum, a free and fair event where all external parties kind of refrained from pulling strings either way to allow the Quebecois to make up their own minds. After a very lively campaign the vote turned the referendum down and opted to stay as part of Canada rather then independence for themselves.

Point being, liberty is what every human being wants, and should be considered his birth right. So long as that is respected the masses have most often made the wisest choice.

Re: # 6
dear takumi...thank you for your kind comments. i am always fascinated how some people

and communities try to resolve conflicts in a peaceful way while others do it a violent way.

some do it with good conscience while others do it with bad conscience. i think human

beings have that duality in their nature. being a humanist i always hope that people would

treat others even their enemies with respect. when a king was presented to another king as

a captive he asked how should i treat you?. the captive said. like a king treats another

king. and he set him free. as a student of human psychology i am studying what factors

lead to peaceful resolve in families and communities and what factors contribute to hostile

reactions and cycle of violence is passed on from one generation to another. sincerely

sohail

This planet experienced growth with an exponential rate, so do the conflicts and so the acts to to solve or counter such conflicts. I heard somewhere Violence is the whore of Power, but fortunately or unfortunately I haven`t observed a single political or idealogical conflict solved in a neutral manner with both parties enjoying justice. Every conflict had its fair share of bloodshed, and peace exist due to the elimination of the less evil or the one who was right. Long-term peace is practically not possible, whenever there are two or more then two human exist, ther will surely arise a conflict and violence is involved in one of the stages unless its solved.

Thus inorder to counter an international political conflict, bloodshed is the most vital characteristic. And for that counter-resistence Guerrilla warfare is one of the most effective tool. Though most of the time Guerrilla warfare is itself driven by the marketeers of that particular ideology and thats quite right, because masses are by and large idiots of a higher caliber.

Thnxx..

P.S. Dr Sahab excellent account of Guerrilla Psychology. I enjoyed something good after quite a period of time.

Re: # 2
dear philosopher....let me clarify my philosophy. i am equally critical of all big powers

invading small countries whether it is capitalist america invading iraq or communist russia

invading afghanistan, i am also not in favour of colonalization whether british colonalization

of india or muslim colonalization of africa. i believe people have the right to have their

freedom, have their secular and democratic governments and live with self respect. when

people`s self respect is bruised and they feel exploited then sooner or later they wake up

and struggle for their independence. i am trying to share that how guerrilla warriors are

trying to challamge big powers and imperialistic and colonial powers have to face that

resistence and deal with guerrilla warriors who might be small in number but sophisticated

in their thinking...sincerely sohail

``Mass killing in the name of the state is legitimate and justified; sporadic acts of violence in the name of religion``

Philosopher pai...

Even Islam advocates this policy. There are no individual acts of violence sanctioned by the value system of Islam. Only state has the supreme authority to use violence under Islam.

This is pertaining only to legality under Islam however. However, freedom struggles, insurgents do have a status under secular international law... which can be discussed later.

Urstruly....i dont see a problem there. I suppose all would agree that Guerilla warfare is only a ``means``..... so where a certain end is desirable for a certain person, guerilla warfare would be justified. There is nothing inherently good or bad about Guerilla warfare....unless of course one is a liberal and therefore it is a part of the agenda to ensure that all means for political struggle are such that they dont hurt one`s ``liberalism`` and can never bring about a revolutionary change.

Re: # 1urstruly wrote

[The basic message is that you consider all those gurella conflicts that were either done by communists or those which are now recognized by West, as valid. All other conflicts are invalid]

dear urstruly.for people like the writerThe West is the source of all the humane ideas of the world. Hence, its military technology, which canonises remote-killing and sanctions indiscriminate slaughter of non-combatant civilians in the name of collective good, cannot be likened to the terrorist acts of our times.


Mass killing in the name of the state is legitimate and justified; sporadic acts of violence in the name of religion (read: Islam) are illicit and immoral. In the final analysis, however, it is the NATURE of the victim that decides the issues of morality: causing Western deaths is always ungodly and unpardonable; exterminating non-western peoples carry no such moral stigma.

Terrorism, in short, is a Muslim invention, and like fanaticism must be applied exclusively to Islam.

REGARDS

I did not see any insight into the psychology of the subject matter, as the title claims. It is some statements of the facts and some judgemental calls. The basic message is that you consider all those gurella conflicts that were either done by communists or those which are now recognized by West, as valid. All other conflicts are invalid. The given reason is that if the gurella warfare results into an outcome that you don`t like, it is invalid. For example, the Afghan freedom strugle against Russians is invalid because it resulted in regressive and oppressive regime but Lennin`s gurella struggle is valid even though it also resulted in a regressive and oppressive empire that lasted 90 yaers. So you apply different criteria for different people - one for those whom you like and are ideologically closer to and other for those whom you dislike and ideologically farther to. This is some psychological gurella warfare of yours.