Steve--
I would contend that the "mailed fist" in Guatemala largely prolonged the war. Granted, military operations specifically targeted on insurgents were effective but those targeted on civilian, Indian communities were counterproductive. What worked for the Guatemalans was their Civil Affairs program called "Polos de Desarrollo" that created armed villages - Mayan language speaking - with significant economic, political, and social rewards. Indeed, it never was the scorched earth campaign initiated or expanded by Rios Montt that brought an end to the war but rather the return of democracy and a population centric strategy coupled with intelligence driven operations against the insurgents that won the fight.
I would also take issue with you regarding the notion that the insurgency in Iraq (and by extension other insurgencies) is not war. Indeed, isurgency is probably the most total war around requiring a real mobilization of the societies under attack or by the attackers if they would achieve success over thelong term. That does not mean repression as the strategy. Sure, absolute repression does work for a while. But to use the Guatemalan case again, the most recent insurgency was the third generation - the first two were wiped out - repressed absolutely - but insurgency was resurgent.
Cheers
JohnT
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
Steve--
Bookmarks