Roger Brothers
John and Alan
Thu Jul 12 17:55:22 2001


I agree with you both when you say that guerilla warfare by it's self could never have been successful. I can't think of one instance in history (at least if we are considering "success" in terms of a few years) where unconventional warfare succeeded without the help of a conventional force and/or foreign intervention. This includes the American Revolution in which both of these played a part. However I still believe that more and earlier irregular warfare would have changed the entire equation.

As far as the common Southern people's willingness to prosecute such a war (and remember it was by and large the common people and not the slave holding aristocrats who were doing the fighting, suffering, starving, mourning, and dying) look at the war in Missouri. Many common Missouri Southerners not only carried on unconventional war from 1861-65 but before and after as well! The Yankee tactic of making war on civilians only hardened the will of the common people to resist.

As for the Viet Cong example, as reprehensible as they were and are in the oppression of their own people, last I heard they still had a country and they were still in control of it!