0.1% is too much
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
None of those were decentralised, they may have been compared to the aggressors but they were not decentralised resistance, they were highly organised and capable.
Vietnam was an actual country with a military.
Afghanistan was militia groups funded by outside entities. You have to actually have organised groups to supply and arm. Random goat herders pinging away at an APC with an AK 47 might exist, but they're just not going to do anything strategically.
Algeria - I don't actually know anything about this one
Chechnya - Chechnya is/was a breakaway region with it's own government in exile and highly organised around tribal/religion. They also don't really exist anymore because they lost.
Iraq - There were militia groups that were literally called armies.
Finland - I don't know how you call a states military fighting as a organised army decentralised or asymmetrical. Outnumbered and outgunned yes.
Vietnam: US and France
Guerrilla warfare, jungle terrain, and political mobilization defined Vietnamese asymmetric strategies against both France and the US.
The Viet Minh and later North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong used intricate tunnel networks like the Củ Chi tunnels, ambushes, and hit-and-run attacks to counter superior French and American firepower.
They avoided large-scale battles, instead focusing on prolonging the conflict to erode enemy political will.
Afghanistan: US and USSR
Decentralized command, terrain mastery, and foreign support enabled Afghan fighters to resist both superpowers.
Against the Soviet Union, mujahideen fighters with US support used mountainous terrain for cover, employed hit-and-run tactics, and received weapons via Pakistan-based sanctuaries.
Later, against the United States, groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda used similar methods, blending with civilians and using IEDs.
Algeria: France
Urban insurgency and international propaganda were key to Algerian asymmetric warfare.
The FLN (National Liberation Front) waged a campaign of bombings and assassinations in cities while leveraging global media and the UN to frame their struggle as a human rights and decolonization issue.
This political strategy helped win international sympathy and pressured France to withdraw.
Chechnya: USSR
Urban warfare and suicide attacks characterized Chechen resistance against Russian forces.
Though post-Soviet, the conflict began under the Russian Federation. Chechen fighters used guerrilla tactics in Grozny, turning cities into battlegrounds and using suicide bombings to maximize psychological impact.
Their goal was national independence, achieved temporarily through attrition.
Iraq: US
Insurgency, IEDs, and sectarian manipulation defined asymmetric strategies post-2003.
After the fall of Saddam Hussein, former regime elements and Al-Qaeda in Iraq used ambushes, car bombs, and improvised explosive devices to target US troops and Iraqi civilians.
They aimed to destabilize the new government and exhaust US public support.
Finland: USSR
Mobility, terrain, and scorched earth were Finnish asymmetric strategies in the Winter War.
Facing a much larger Soviet Red Army, Finnish troops used skis for rapid movement through forests and executed ambushes in the Karelian Isthmus.
They avoided direct confrontation, instead relying on delaying tactics and extreme cold to weaken Soviet forces.
In sum it seems the Maxwells did a number on you with their McGrawHill school books. Either that or you are a fucking zogbot. If the former read more. If the latter suck a bag of dicks LOL
I think we obviously have different ideas of what decentralised and asymetric refer too.