(Just in case some /leftypol/ tourist starts yelling 'glow fed', I'm not American, this is purely out of curiosity, if anyone were serious they wouldn't be discussing it on a public pan-african permagrowth-designing forum, and it's not my fault if your opsec is atrociously shit)
The vid rel (from Examined Life) was posted a while ago, the punchline being the El Salvadorean telling the pessimistic American 'don't you have mountains in the US?' 'It's easy, you go to the mountains, you start an armed cell, you create revolution.' A recent reply retorted, absurdly, that the government would 'just McNuke' them.
It got me thinking a bit, the US despite MacArthur's efforts didn't iNuke any country since Japan and I suspect it would be very unlikely to do it on a civilized part of their own mainland. And ultimately, even in the modern age, the US has failed to really utilize their weaponry dominance. It's easy for the naive eye to look at drones, gun-dogs, tanks and planes and forget just how effective asymmetric warfare can be against superpowers.
- Is creating a base of operations onnamountains a viable tactic in the US?
- Are there any modern US examples of successful guerilla tactics, urban or rural? Possible examples could include organized crime or rural compounds.
- How is asymmetric warfare changed by proximity? US wars in Asia and further have a noticeable supply issue with distance.
>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
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
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.
Would there even be enough alaskan natives to carry out a major insurgency?
do you even live in America?