/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

>Is creating a base of operations in the mountains a viable tactic in the US?
Yes, but it entirely depends on your familiarity with your surroundings, if you're a city kind of guy, you'd be better off with an urban insurgency similar to what the Iraqis did. If you're a boondocks kind of guy, even the swamps of Florida would be a good place to hide out.

What matters in any insurgency are these things:
1. Will to continue fighting even in utterly terrible circumstances
2. A supply base (food especially) that will allow you to keep going
3. Demonstrate to the populace that your cause is just
4. Funding

The first point is where your indoctrination and brainwashing need to be solid, your dudes need to know why they are fighting and why fighting is necessary, the whole shebang posted in the other thread with weapons and manuals are putting the cart before the horse. Everyone must know why they are fighting BEFORE they fight. The NLF in Vietnam had an incredibly boring, but remarkably effective method. They simply brought out a whole bunch of peasants to tell long-ass sob stories of French oppression to their cadres, and then after the weeping was done, they had their army.

Second point depends on where your base is, cities are full of supplies, but the counter-insurgents will be hounding you from every corner day and night, not to mention the vast surveillance network. Going out into the boondocks reduces this surveillance potential, but rural places are not brimming with supplies, and the population may or may not be sympathetic. Which brings us to…

How to get the population either on your side, or at least ambivalent to you. That's where you need to set clear rules and guidelines for your dudes to minimize collateral, Mao's rules can be inspirational in this regard. Don't take it as gospel though, and the rules are no substitute for doing the necessary thing, lots of civilians are going to suffer regardless, and if its you or a bunch of scared/angry nobodies, you'd better have a plan.

As for funding, that depends on if you manage to get a foreign patron. Unfortunately, there's no way Russia or China could supply you even if they really wanted to, best to find a way of raising your own funds, hostage-taking, looting, and straightforward extortion are all possibilities. You could get into the drug trade, but really, do you want to?
>Are there any modern US examples of successful guerilla tactics, urban or rural?
Not really, the cartels and inner-city gangs don't count because fundamentally, Uncle Sam doesn't really care unless they do something really heinous/stupid.
>How is asymmetric warfare changed by proximity? US wars in Asia and further have a noticeable supply issue with distance.
The farther away, the more time and resources it takes to get things to where they need to be, Uncle Sam has a bad problem with manning and rotations throughout their adventures. You're better off hoping that no one really has the drive the fight you when it comes down to it, which is why your indoctrination has to be solid.

Americans are too stupid and conformist to be actual guerrillas. Even the most armed and militant right wing nutjobs, all contrarianism aside, are conformists. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the jaw and every tin pot militant preaching race war goes quiet once the feds start knocking on his door. Liberalism has successfully convinced most Americans that the only legitimate form of politics is to stand in line to vote for the same two parties over and over again, and of course yanks believe this.

Let's take a look at terrain. In America only certain areas have expansive wilderness where the US army would struggle to operate. The forests of the Pacific North West, the Cascades and Alaska. Everywhere else its just urban cities and suburbs. Look at the design of the average American suburb. What do you see? Boxes with lawns neatly arranged in ordered row with lots of space in between them. There is nowhere to hide. These locations are easy to surveil, they don't provide much cover and their inhabitants are docile as fuck.

Okay, well what about RAF style urban guerrilla warfare? Well, the major cities in the US are basically becoming cities for the rich. All the poor are being shoved out by high rent to other areas and are forced to commute to the city to have their labor exploited in the assigned enslavement facility. These neighborhoods do have a tradition of noble banditry (something Che points out as good for the guerrilla) but because they are inhabited mostly by blacks and latinos they will just trigger the genocide event.

One last thing… what do Americans think is worth fighting for? Gas prices? Poverty? No! Gay rights, abortion, immigrants, race war, party politics etc. In other words nothing really important. Americans live in a simulated hyperreality why they care more about the symbolic projected through their iPhones than stuff that's actually staring them in the face.

>>3985
> In America only certain areas have expansive wilderness where the US army would struggle to operate. The forests of the Pacific North West, the Cascades and Alaska. Everywhere else its just urban cities and suburbs
You're forgetting about the Appalachian

>>3988
That's true let's not forget Eric Rudolph was able to elude the feds there for a long time. But the Appalachians are not remote enough. Roads and highways connect it to large population centers meaning troops and equipment can easily be hauled in and the area is well mapped out. It may be possible for the natives of Alaska to mount an armed resistance to the US but in that case the US will just genocide them like they've done to pretty much every other group of natives.

>>3997
Would there even be enough alaskan natives to carry out a major insurgency?

>>3972
Eye don't know!

>>3997
do you even live in America?

>>3972
The rex from Iraq tell us that if you try to ambush soldiers you tend to die and you will suffer 8 losses per soldier you kill, but plant IEDs and you will kill 3 soldiers per insurgent shot.

This information is already public, I can not be held responsible for what someone might do with it.

The US seems to lose to guerillas or revolutionaries more often than it would like to. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua. Which begs the question: what are some countries that the US/West cannot afford to "lose". I am talking about countries that the US would do ANYTHING to prevent from "falling" or "turning sides", like do occupation of Poland or Manchuria levels of violence to maintain influence or whatever.

>>4670
Their immediate neighbour Canada would be the most obvious and easiest answer.

Following close behind would be Japan and South Korea in that order.

Potential countries the US might go crazy for are the UK, France, Germany and Australia.

Not sure where to put Mexico tbh.