Psychology of Guerrilla War

#24 by zeemax

For guerilla warfare definition please check wikipedia …should not be confused .. “with simple small unit tactics like ambushes, or light probing attacks which most conventional armies incorporate as part of their routine training.” Guerrilla action takes place behind enemy lines by irregular forces.

Why you keep insisting on the Muslim raids out of Medina as guerilla war? Obviously it is because you find it shameful to admit or acknowledge that the raids were nothing more then banditry and acts of piracy which have plagued our history ever since.

First of all Medina was a sovereign city state by itself, without any link or dependence upon Mecca or any other entity. This was its sanctuary, its abode which may have been smaller and less wealthy then Mecca but still its own where nobody could threaten it. It was also a city state which had gone through a long and protracted conflict and in the process created battle hardened Ansars to whom the Meccan traders were no match. So may be the cities were unequal but it was still a fight between two independent states. Add to that the fact that Medina had a written constitution which spelled out the terms for all the residents including the Jews – so the whole city was included and had a charter. Calling this conflict as guerilla warfare is disingenuous.

Re: # 24
dear zeemax....as a student of human psychology i have a keen interest in the

personalities of creative people, scientists and artists and mystics and reformers and

revolutionaries. a few years ago i chose a few reformers and revolutionaries of 20th

century and studied their life stories to see who tried to bring social and poltical changes

peacefully and who embraced violence, who was willing to give his life for his cause and

who was willing to take a life for his cause. that study resulted in my book...

Prophets of Violence...Prophets of Peace...Reformers and Revolutionaries of 20th century.

that was published in 2005. During that study I got interested in guerrilla warriors of 20th

century...and i am still studying them and wrote a brief overview from 1906....2006 in a

short article for chowk. i hope this answers your question.

i am amused though with your letters seeing how you like to challange others and throw

baits and how others bite those baits. if i was not not a psychotherapist and saw the baits

coming i might have strongly reacted to your comments like.....`by muslims whom you

despise`....i respect muslims the same way i respect hindus and christians and jews or

followers of other religions but the reason of respect is their humanity not religion. now i

hope you will share your studies and insights about muslim guerrilla warfare and tell us

whether muslims brought change by peaceful means or by violence and whether that

change was progressive or regressive ...sincerely sohail

Re: # 24 zeemax {``...how 313 Muslims of Medina bleeded the entire city of Mecca dry, drew them into a trap at their home turf, and crushed three times the enemy`s numbers at Badr in a decisive battle which forever changed the course of history...``}

I am just as impressed at that feat, but again, that was not unique in history, either before or since. 313 Muslims faced over 1,000 Meccans... Now how much is ``over 1,000?`` Let`s be really generous and say it was DOUBLE that number. So now we are looking at 313 against 2,000... That is a 1:6.4 ratio. Let`s be more generous and call it 1:7... Huge odds, no doubt. But hardly unique or spectacular. The Romans had done many such battles and at worse odds. Take the example of Suetonius, the Roman military governor of Britain. He faced the rebellious British force under Queen Boudica at 1:20 numerical superiority in the British favor (140,000 British against 7,000 Roman legionairs). At the end of the day, 80,000 British corps littered the battlefield and only 400 Romans had fallen. That too, was ``a decisive battle which forever changed the course of history``

Look, my point is not to undermine or pooh-pooh the heroes of Badr, but to appeal to your sense of balance to not let your own religious chauvinism carry you off on some tangent of hyperbole.

...SR

Re: # 17 zeemax {``...the very first guerilla warfare i.e. by the Muhajireen against the Quraish. ...``}

I do not wish to butt into your discussion with Chowk`s resident shrink, but this Muhajireen against Quraish, if you want to call it a guerilla war -- and I certainly would`nt object to such characterisation of those desert raids -- is hardly the first time in history such guerilla tactics were used. Julius Caesar`s first British expedition in 55 BC was dogged by hit-and-run guerilla tactics. So was his next campaign the following year as was, as century late, the abortive attempt by Caligula to invade Britain. It was only later that Claudius was able to capture the island with a much greater force. For the following 400 years the Roman rule was constantly facing guerilla tactics by the Picts and other Britons. In fact Hadrian`s Wall was built to keep out guerilla warriors, just as the Israelis have built the so-called ``security fense`` to keep terrorism (a new term for guerilla tactics) out...

So please let`s not claim that guerilla tactics were invented in Hijaz during the 620s AD.

...SR

#19 by drsohail

Dear Dr. Sohail,

I`ll be glad to share with you the intricacies of that guerilla warfare. But you haven`t answered my question.

My question was, ``How come you haven`t researched the very first guerilla warfare?``

Was it because of bias that you didn`t even consider it worthy of mention, or lack of knowledge or interest in the very beginning of tactics of guerilla warfare actually invented in early Islam by Muslims whom you despise, or some other reason?

Once you answer the above, we shall discuss on how 313 Muslims of Medina bleeded the entire city of Mecca dry, drew them into a trap at their home turf, and crushed three times the enemy`s numbers at Badr in a decisive battle which forever changed the course of history.

Thanks & Regards.

Sohail,
I reiterate that your paper is insufficient which is also a reflection on your book. Dealing from your angle of psychology, war itself in any form has predominantly psy causes to it. The theory of Human Aggression and man being aggressive by Nature is well spelled by Lorenz. Just like a conventional conflict is the forte of the strong, unconventional is the opportunity of the weak. Yet, as we saw in Afghanistan, USA through Mujahids now Terrorists resorted to the non conventional.

I wonder if you ever read the great historian Thucydides and his accounts of the Athenian-Sparta Wars and the English resistance to the Roman occupation spearheaded by a Queen. You also need to read the captivity of Jews in Babylon, and the reaction of Muslims to Christian Knights (Crusades).

With the advent of Nation-States, Un Conventional War cannot survive without a Cause, Strong Leadership, External base/Support and most Popularity.

ZEEMAX, Dont tell me you do not know history. The war between the Ansars and Qureish was un-conventional but never the first of its kind in history. I have qouted a few examples above.

In the context of Muslim counteries some of the latest are:-
1. Jungle War in Malaysia
2. Afghan Mock Jihad during Soviet Occupation.
3. Algerian War.
4. The rise of the Baathist.

Cheerios

#15 by drsohail

Conflict resolution is only possible if the parties to the conflict are interested in resolving it. Sadly to say, that Israel to this day has not been interested in resolving this conflict despite its rhetoric. It still holds (the vast majority of its power elite) to the mistaken notion that it can have the West Bank for ever by force. Add to that the volatile combination of religious belief that God has ordained them and given them this land and the other fact that the land mass is so small that they could easily use it for the growth of their own population and it is absolutely essential for their security.

The Palestinians problems are equally stark and worse. They have no place to go and are fighting for their survival. Peace would be only possible when Israel genuinely looks for avenues to conflict resolution. In the past those who tried to resolve it paid with their death or destruction (Itzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres etc.)

So the UN Secretary General or for that matter the whole world cannot bring peace or conflict resolution, because one of the parties doesn’t want it.

Re: # 16
dear ijaz-gul....because of the limitations of the space on chowk, i mentioned a few

refernces for this article...the earlier book has more references...i thoroughly enjoyed franz

fanon`s book about algerian guerrilla war.....these days i am reading 1200 pages history of

guerrilla war...war in the shadows... by robert asprey...thanks for suggesting new

readings...sohail

Re: # 18
dear tolkinin....do you not think that alongside similarities there are also differences

between biological, psychological and social sciences....? between quantitative and

qualitive studies?....sohail

Re: # 17
dear zeemax....share with me what are your views about that guerrilla warfare? sohail

Psychiatry is not a science in the true sense of the word........it is differently interpreted in
different Psycho social context...

Andre Shakarov was cosidered a `mad man` meaning psycihatrically diagnosed by Russians
while conveniently he was hailed as Physicist by USA

Kind of surprising you haven`t researched the very first guerilla warfare i.e. by the Muhajireen against the Quraish.

Is it because of bias?

Sohail,
You may have to revise your book as it appears to have a very narrow reference/ Do read the following too.
Jungle War in Malaysia
Sabres of Paradise
Guerrilla by Walter Laqueur
Arthashastra translated by Kangle
Readings on Low Intensity Conflict
Thirty Years war or Pettite Guerre in Europe in the 17th C
The Spanish Civil War
Algerian Movement
Dimension of Strategy by Michel Howard. Concentrate on the Social Dimension
On War By Clausewitz
to name a few
Cheerios

Re: # 13
dear tehsinabbasi...i am curious about your insights about violent conflicts and peaceful

resolutions in different countries and communities. what are you views about

israeli/palestinian conflict. menachin begin in israel and yasser arafat in palestine fought

guerrilla wars.if you were the secretary general of united nations, how would you try to

resolve that conflict, which is associated with peace in the middle east in particular and

the whole world in general? sincerely sohail

Only prosperity brings liberalism and tolerance (generally, there are exceptions though). The reason being, in abundance people tend to be magnanimous besides rule of law is conducive to maintaining that prosperity.

#12 by drsohail

I am afraid it is not the evolution of the community rather it is the background and the value system of the community in question. Like where as Canada was an ‘evolved’ community, Czechoslovakia came out of some pretty brutal Soviet repression with Soviet tanks invading Prague during the 60’s. But more interesting is the case of South Africa where conflicts were resolved through truth and reconciliation commissions. You can say that South Africa is an evolved community as well, but what about Rwanda. There even, after the brutalization of the Tutsis by the Hooto majority it has been truth and reconciliation commissions which have been able to bring peace to the country. This kind of commission has worked very well in Africa where as in other areas of the world it has not either been used or worked well. It just goes to show that the value system in a certain area may allow certain methods to work and those are the buttons that need to be pressed to bring about a peaceful resolution to that community