Egyptian militants ignite gas pipeline (courtesy presstv.ir)

“In a rare visit to eight villages in Northern Sinai last week, a Reuters reporter saw widespread destruction caused by army operations, but also found evidence that a few hundred militants are successfully playing a cat-and-mouse game with the Arab world’s biggest army and are nowhere near defeat . . . Residents say the militants – a mix of Egyptian Islamists, foreign fighters and disgruntled youth – have seized control of about a third of the villages in the region and are now taking their fight closer to Cairo. ‘The army is in control of the main roads but is unable to enter many villages. It can only attack them by helicopter,’ said Mustafa Abu Salman, who lives near al-Bars village.” Special Report: Egyptian militants outwit army in Sinai battlefield [via reuters.com] [h/t SS]

52 Responses to Quote of the Day: An Armed Populace Can Hold Off an Entire Modern Army Edition

  1. Our own revolution, Texas revolution against Spain, French revolution, Vietnam (French and the US), Afghanistan(Russians and The US),IRA, Communists in Russia, China, Cuba; the Arab Spring, and many not listed. History is replete with successful revolutions or holding actions by “insurgents” against a larger and better equipped military force.

  2. The fighters in Syria share common borders with nations where they can rest and refit. In comparison the US does not. The confederacy died a deserved death in part because of a blockade by the union navy. Long ocean routes are very difficult to utilise without a blue water navy.

    And the onlu borders we share are with Canada and Mexico. No help there.

    • The US also has gigantic land territory that is almost impossible to properly patrol. A few well hidden and easily relocated bases are all that is needed.

        • National park pot farms. Plus there is the fact that Afghanistan is almost the exact same size as Texas. All those satellites really put the Taliban on the run, eh? I’m not saying that there aren’t those who want to pull the trigger on civilians, but how long do you think that is going to last when a war against American’s is waged by the US government? At least while there is free communication, free speech, and a rifle behind every blade of grass. Were they to get total control over those, all bets are off.

      • The Taliban are able to goat path out to other countries that are friendly to them. Bin Laden was snuffed in Pakistan. A couple of well stocked bases in the US would be outed in a heartbeat and then what?

        Intel gathering wins out. Hutaree Militia, anyone. There’s not a single sizeable group in the US that doesn’t have moles in it. Anybody see the reports on the militia groups in Idaho? A large portion of their gov hating members were getting a gov check of one kind or another and food stamps.

      • Or just hide among the people. Without a decent amount of support from the common man, an insurgency is doomed anyway.

        • If you’re starting your insurgency or civil war because CT banned AR’s you will not have the popular support of the people. Things are going to have to get many degrees worse before any type of rebellion would gain support.

    • From what I understand the of the biggest concerns for the Union was the very real possibility that the rebels would switch to guerrilla tactics, destroying any hope of maintaining political and economic control. It was only by Lee’s desire to end the war honorably that it didn’t happen.

      • Look at a famous Reb that did continue the war. He used hit and run tactics and had popular support. Jesse James. How did that work out for him? And I don’t want to hear that internet, rah , rah, death before dishonor hot air.

        You need popular support for that type of operation to have a hope. Look around you. How many people are willing to bring a war into their American suburban neighberhood so you can own an AR?

        The confederates were all to glad to end the war. 4 years and the best of their men were wasted supporting a bogus cause.

  3. History is also replete with failed revolutions and uprisings; there are a number of factors involved that help or hinder such an endeavor.

  4. those seeking to take our liberty will have to choose between their jobs or protecting their families. can’t do both “behind” enemy lines.

  5. History is filled with conventional military wisdom proven wrong: infantry cannot withstand a heavy cavalry charge (Stirling Bridge, Scotland); never divide your army in the face of superior numbers (Chancellorsville); light infantry is helpless against armored vehicles (French Foreign Legion vs. Libyan armor). The list goes on & on. War always brings out desperate solutions to tackle impossible circumstances.

  6. I guess Assad is on the verge of defeat.

    A few hundred fighters can hold off a modern army if hey fight by the West’s rules of engagement. Not so much if they are fighting an Assad or Milosevic.

    •  Insurgents have defeated better armed, more numerous regular forces many times throughout history. Most of those regular forces belonged to kings, emperors and other tyrants who exempted themselves from all rules.

      That doesn’t mean that insurgent forces always win, but to pretend that they have no chance of victory is to ignore history.

      Also, if you think the Egyptians fight by Western rules, you don’t know them.

      • Always with outside assistance. The Russians were winning their war in Afghanistan until Charlie Wilson showed up.

        And who said anything about Egypt? Assad is President of Syria.

        • And the Soviets supported General Diaps Irish Americans had the IRA’s back. There is always outside interference in conflicts to the point that the interference more a consequence than an antecedence. What matters is how effectively the rebel forces can maintain cohesion, public support and recruiting.

  7. It would take a well-trained & equipped, disciplined, highly motivated ‘armed populace’ to make much difference against a truly modern military force.
    Assuming that military force isn’t engaging with any kind of political/social restraint.
    Extremely difficult to hide from satellites, thermal sights, and 8″ air-to-ground rockets.
    In the US it’s likely the hope of any guerrilla patriot force (utterly non criminal) would have sympathizers in the population and in the military. Might help a little.
    Connecticut (and other States) has taken steps to make the threat of such resistance far more difficult.
    The pacification of most American citizens is coming in little bites. Pay attention.

    • You big concern does not need to be the tiny, and downsizing, US ARMY/USMC. Loaded down with useless women and queers. You concern should be the growing Fed Militarized civilian apparatus. Who are not bound by the legal restrictions on the military, are better financed and armed.

    • Where motivated = willing to die at a ratio of an order of magnitude greater than your enemy

      See vietnam vs US for what “winning” looks like under these conditions. I doubt there are enough liberty loving Americans to sustain that kind of loss.

    • It rolled right over a huge Soviet armed and trained army. Twice. Then hands tied by politicians. And this time by the surrender of a useless poltroon.

      • How would you define a free hand? The Spanish crown tried the no-holds-barred approach against rebels and it effectively destroyed their empire.

      • Yeah, while the international three letter agencies and friends played Rendition and used “enhanced interrogation techniques.” They got more, better intel from pocket lint.

  8. All one has to do is look back into the ’80’s at the Soviet invasion, occupation and subsequent withdrawal of Afghanistan…that’s a lesson to any major or superpower that the power, actually belongs to the people…

        • On paper, after meeting almost none of their objectives and getting mauled so badly that they were forced to save face.

        • There is no runner up on the battlefield.

          The Soviets forced the Fins to surrender and cede territory. That is definition of win. The Fins got the silver medal.

          Don’t make up history. There is a record of events out there.

        • Finland – 25,904 dead or missing + some dirt

          Soviets – 126,875 dead or missing, and didn’t get nearly what they were after, just some extra dirt, some of which happened to be strategic to Leningrad.

          FFA? Blue Team wins on kill count alone
          CTF? Nearly a tie
          Economic Focus? Red Team wins, because human life is not a factor for commies.

          Anyone who calls this a win for the soviets would seem to unfortunately be blinded by historical revisionism viewed through the rose tinted lenses of our great allies in WW2. I would even go so far as to say the Soviets didn’t even win in WW2, no matter how much extra dirt they got to draw lines around on the map. Russia is going to voluntarily die off in the next few centuries because it still places no value on the humans that inhabit it or the rest of the planet, hasn’t in the slightest since long before they massacred the czar’s family. Worker’s paradise? More like alcoholic dystopia.

  9. If every American did their duty and bought mosins by the crate to give to their friends, this wouldn’t be a problem! 😀

      • Because ammo. I’m sitting on 1.5 spam cans (600 rounds? getting LOW!) for my Mosin and could add to that anytime I wanted. OTOH my dad can’t find anything to feed his Mauser for any price. He has some brass cased PPU but it’s less accurate than my Mosin at >5x the price.

        A Mauser may have a nicer trigger and lighter bolt but what’s the point if you can’t feed it?

        • Looking at gunbot it seems that 8mm Mauser availability has improved a lot since I last checked around Christmas. However, it’s still twice as expensive and you’d have to have it shipped. My LGS has crates of 7.62x54r ($120+tax last I checked, cheaper online).

  10. How many guns were in the ghettos of Warsaw?

    The most important task for an armed insurrection is not to defeat the military. The goal is to make enslaving a population so expensive in terms of military assets that only the most authoritarian regimes could possibly pull it off.

    By removing firearms ahead of time, nations lower the cost of enslavement.

    • “The goal is to make enslaving a population so expensive in terms of military assets that only the most authoritarian regimes could possibly pull it off.”

      shouldnt be a problem.. Military contractors still charge 700 bucks for hammers..and a push broom handle poked thru the side of a few F-35’s can ground hundreds of millions of dollars in assets ….

      hell the US industrial military complex could be brought to it’s knees without firing a shot because of the inflated costs associated with keeping it running

  11. Sure, but what is an ‘armed populace’? The Jews in Warsaw knew what would happen if they lost. What do you wolverines think the government is going to do that will galvanize the US ‘populace’ enough to get that sort of dedication among people who end up rocking themselves to sleep if their internet goes out?

  12. Only if organization. If the populace fights the military on a one person per military, they will lose. BTW, unless the populace has something that can take out tanks and the A-10s…I do not see it lasting that long.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *