>>2399
Anon, while what you say has merit, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. Before we go any further, I should clarify the definition of guerrilla I subscribe to, so as to ensure we are indeed talking about the same thing. Guerrilla warfare is that which is waged by a group that has access to less physical resources than its opponent, resorting mainly to tactics that involve high mobility and indirect confrontation (such as ambushes, sabotage, hit-and-run tactics and strategic assassinations), and who makes use of political tactics to win the favor of the civilian population and use them as a support structure.
The state of the countries you mentioned has, in my opinion, less to do with the use of guerrilla tactics than with the revolutionary nature of the conflicts. It is not only understandable but expected that the conflicts you mentioned have resorted in significantly different political and social scenarios than before them, as that was the goal of the fighters. What I mean is: the cases of China, Vietnam, Nicaragua and so on resulted in significant political changes not because of the use of guerrilla tactics, but because this was the goal of the people who resorted to the guerrilla tactics. Look at the case of resistance movements in WWII. They were formed not by individuals who hoped to enact significant change, but individuals who wanted to prevent change (I am referring, of course, to the Nazi occupation of these countries), and to do so resorted to guerrilla tactics. These countries are examples of places where the guerrillas have won (in conjunction with conventional military forces), and which are not, as you put it, "shitholes". We can also look at the mujahideen, who used this kind of warfare to expel the smore powerful soviets from their country. Their goal was to cease international intervention in domestic policy, and their goal was achieved. True, the result was a country that arguably regressed economically and culturally, but to a previous point at which the fighters were aiming. The clearest example is probably the American Revolutionary war. There we see the use of guerrilla tactics combined with conventional conflicts resulting in the victory of the side supported by the guerrillas. Individuals involved in the fighting were later part of the government and helped determine the structures of government followed until this very day.
You could claim that the collaboration with a conventional force means that these are not "true" guerrillas, to which I would point out the cooperation between the vietcong and the NVA. You could also claim that guerrillas are necessarily used for revolutionary ends, to which I would disagree, but we would then enter into a discussion over the definition of guerrilla.
I stated that the guerrilla achieves "maximum political impact with minimal violence". I realize now that the misunderstanding probably arose from the fact that I used the term "violence" with the meaning of "force". The guerrilla fighter makes use of less force simply because less of it is available to him. He cannot call for artillery or for an air strike, so his offensive options are limited to smaller arms. He does not engage in full frontal assaults because not only would he be greatly overpowered, but also because it would serve no goals. An insurgent shooting a soldier at the back of the head with a pistol and taking his rifle has a greater effect on the morale of the soldiers than a direct enemy attack, because now they are aware that they might be attacked at any time by anyone. After weeks and months of IEDs and pot-shots from the trees, the soldier begins to look for a way to retaliate at an enemy he does not see, and he finds the only way to do so is by treating the non-combatants as the enemy. This generates popular discontent, which fuels the guerrillas, and so on and so forth. The guerrilla capitalizes on this snowball effect caused by the manipulation of the basic human instincts and the unavoidable heavy-handedness of its enemy.
It should also be pointed out that in the scenarios that you mentioned, it was not the guerrilla itself that turned these countries into what they became, but the governments that followed the conflict. True, a great deal of the government was made up of individuals who fought as guerrillas, but it was not their experience in armed conflict, but their incompetence, that caused them to turn out this way. Also, your cases focus on civil wars, while mine focus on foreign occupation. It would be an understatement to say that this is probably the most significant factor between our groups of examples, and goes to show the scope in which guerrilla tactics may be used.