Mao gave up his sanctuary with the long March, yet succeeded. Actually, many rebellions have no safe heavens / sanctuaries at the beginning. Remember Castro in 1959 - he was hunted around for weeks or months, always on the move. Algerian insurgents around 1960 lost most sanctuaries they had due to aggresive paratrooper tactics - but they won because the enemy lost the will to continue (due to the immorality of his own tactics).
Clausewitz did probably plan to include small wars in his works with the revision that he planned. He told someone before his death that not all wars fit his description and he'd need to read and change the books accordingly sometime.
Death prevented such changes to the books.
The closest thing to Schwerpunkt that Guerillas could have would are imho
- an area of particular strength with most guerilla fighters in it
- an assembly of many guerillas before a large battle (like Dien Bien Phu)
In both cases, it needs to present such a large share of their power that a loss would be a disaster.
Clausewitz is not always correct and gives not always the best advice - his works were not intended to fit small wars (although he for sure knew enough about the Spanish insurgents against Napoleon) and some of his concepts are of limited value for small wars. He ws also quite weak on including naval affairs into his works - English Schwerpunkt was always the fleet, French Schwerpunkt was Napoleon (and at the same time the army he commanded). It was impossible to collide for both Schwerpunkte, a case not considered by Clausewitz as Vom Kriege is essentially a work about land warfare between states / state alliances.
This is a propagada term, made to mark enemies as especially bad people beyond rational reasoning. It's a PR trick to do things like this - who can name a phenomenon can influence how others sense it.Islamofascism
It's better not to use such a term. In fact, there's little resemblance to fascism.
Bookmarks