Reddit reviews The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century (Zenith Military Classics)

Because a lot of people out there literally believe the dumbest shit.

Dems need to approach the GOP base with classical counterinsurgency tactics, minus the direct action components, treating them like you would any other extreme fundamentalist sect. Education, hearts and minds.

Two of my favorite books are called the The Sling and the Stone and Utility of Force.

Both are pretty easy straightforward reads. They are military men and just want to explain in the easiest way possible.

They are free in gen.lib.rus.ec

The Sling and the Stone, though it's been a while since I've read it so I don't know how well it holds up today.

I've done a bit of reading on terrorism and the most commonly accepted definitions of terrorism actually seem to lack terror. Terrorism is an act of small military value with the intent to cause a greater political effect, mostly through fear or inspiration ("calls to action"). These Islamists are a new breed and certainly not the standard-bearer for terrorists. I liked these books, 1 and [2] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520247094/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

It's not a simple of guerrilla warfare. The type of warfare encountered in Vietnam is often referred to as fourth generation warfare (4GW). 4GW involves a series of complex strategies working together to both discredit and demoralize an opponent.

I would argue that a bigger aspect in 4GW is discrediting an opponent. We saw how this worked on both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Originally the Palestinians gained the upper hand in part because they were able to win the political war. The Palestinians took great lengths to make themselves look like the good guys who were effectively peaceful individual armed with little more than sticks and stones going up against the heavily armed Israelis. Strategists on the Palestinian side ensured that very few actual weapons were used by its fighters and make it a point to accuse the Israelis of using live ammunition (when oftentimes they were using rubber ammunition). They also invited reporters in the Palestinian region and gave them open access to everybody but ensured the most eloquently spoken individuals were readily available to talk with those reporters. Those interviewees made sure to discuss their desire to simply stop the fighting and left out any claims of wanting to destroy Israel or hurt Israelis. This strategy paid off and won the Palestinians a great deal of international sympathy.

Then the tables turned. Arafat returned from Tunisia to Palestine after the initial uprising had mostly concluded. After arriving he started discussing his desire to destroy Israel and wipe its people off of the face of the Earth. Suddenly Israel was able to wield international support. It was able to point to Arafat and his people as proof that the Palestinians wanted to destroy Israel and that conflicts between the two regions were merely acts of Israeli self-defense. The Israeli government made sure to point out that peaceful coexistence is impossible when one side has a desire to entirely wipe out the other side. Rather quickly international support began swinging behind Israel.

Many people who talk about guerrilla warfare in the United States forget about the political side. Guerrilla tactics can chip away at an enemy's morale but it can also fuel their propaganda machine. It's trivial to make random bombings look like vicious acts of wanton destruction. Properly spun guerrilla tactics can be a boon for the target as they can use attacks to argue that the war is purely self-defense in nature.

Most of the people who talk about guerrilla warfare against the United States government are poor at developing sympathy from bystanders. Instead they typically come off as being rather dickish. In the eyes of the general public this makes any military action the United States government takes against advocates of revolution justified.

If you want to have a serious discussion about waging war against the United States government you need to invest more time in public opinion. You need to set yourself up to be the reasonable individuals in the eyes of the public. Like the Palestinians during the first Intifada you must make it appear as though you're striving for peace at any cause and merely taking defensive action against the great bully of the United States government. That's a far different game than most revolutionaries seem to play. Instead they seem to favor the "I wish the motherfucker would" style, which is to say they make it appear as though they want to fight the United States government. Without public support for your side guerrilla warfare is unlikely to succeed.