mike wilson wrote: > Paul Sorenson wrote: > >> The unfortunate truth is >> that if you don't have a chain of command, you really don't have an >> effective military. > > Tell that to <insert favourite "terrorist" organisation here>. >
None of which are militarily effective. Politically Effective? Yep. But not militarily. The goal of a terrorist organization is to acheive political goals via intimidation and semi-random violence(as opposed to a military, whose goal is to achieve political goals via precisely directed & controlled violence). This they often do quite well (or quite poorly, as in the case of say, Fatah). None of them can stand on the field of battle and almost all such organizations avoid engaging a true military organization except when they can do so without risking themselves or if they have overwhelming local superiority. That's why the preferred tactic today is either the shoot & scoot mortar attack or preset roadside bombs. Neither is particularly risky against a Western military (who tend to be rather timid when the correct action is legal according to the laws of war but will be portrayed as an illegal war crime nonetheless, like say counterbattery fire against a mortar attack from a populated area) The NVA was about the last militarily effective geurrilla army, and they certainly had a chain of command. As does the Taliban and FARC for that matter. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
