Omar Cabezas’s Fire from the Mountain is now available here.
In this version, it’s a little longer than in the one I have. I may (as with The Country Under My Skin) suggest you only need to read some parts of it, but I may not. I will look over it and tell you.
This week’s assigned reading was the greatly influential novel Guerilla Warfare by Che Guevara. It is often widely considered a guidebook for creating a revolution and waging armed struggle. It should be noted however that as military tactics advance and the novel itself might lose some relevance in the sense that some military strategies that Che employs are no longer useful. For instance, the section where Che talks about making mobile mortar shelters is for the most case irrelevant with today’s advances in the military. The true importance of this text in my opinion are the sections where Che outlines the tactics a guerilla band must employ on certain terrain and the favorability and disadvantages that revolutionaries face when they employ armed struggle as a means to achieve political power. I firmly believe that these tenants that Che describes are crucial for the success of the revolution, as it is this general outline of the progression of the guerilla force from a small band, to a self-sustaining army with many qualities that can rival the existing state (schools, media outlets, hospitals, tax collection etc.).
The next key topics that Che writes on regard the use of terrorism and its place in the revolutionary struggle. What I find most interesting is it is clear Che has a bias against using terrorism as a means of achieving ones goals, but instead of dismissing terrorism from a solely moral standpoint, he explains the logistical issue surrounding it. He explains how it is illogical (this is expanded on more in other texts beyond Guerilla Warfare to be fair) to subject the very people that a revolutionary is fighting for to pain and fear in the hopes to get ones message across. His case for armed struggle is a very strong one, where he describes the benefits of this type of warfare over terrorism. This notably culminates in the fact that an armed struggle can only be won with the popular support of the people, and that terrorism, while occasionally being useful for revolutionaries in some circumstances (extremely rare) it can never be a means to and end.
To me Che Guevara is an incredible figure and “true” revolutionary. Not because the man was without flaws, because some of his views definitely were homophobic and misogynistic, but because Che embodies what it means to be revolutionary. The Cuban revolution, and to a greater extent all revolutionary activity in Latin America and the rest of the world, is influenced by Che. His willingness to devote himself to an ideal, and fight until the death is something that profoundly impacts me. It is this quality, which Che describes as a “love for humanity” which is his lasting legacy. Only through a love of the people, and a commitment to them to fight until the last breath, can one truly become revolutionary in my mind. Successful revolutions (which here I will define as an overthrow of power structures and the attempt towards communism) only succeed because the individuals who fight in them are so willing to see the proletariat break free of their chains, and they are willing to die for this. It is this ultimate sacrifice, that Che and many other revolutionaries make, that solidifies their presence in revolutions to come.
It’s going to be fun to run a class about Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare, a text that is very different to what we have read so far in class. The text is a hands-on, practical manual on how to fight battles in the countryside, with the ultimate goal of toppling an unwanted dictatorship or government. The text is very direct and detailed. According to Guevara, if you follow his manual, you will successfully find the means for a revolution to take place. Reading the text was rather eerie; it had me thinking that I am in now ways adept to fight for a revolutionary cause in the countryside (not that I was ever considering it). But reading the manual made me think about how strong men and women are who fight in the conditions specified in the text. For example, your knapsack is your home, just like a snail; everything that you hold in your back contains all your possessions. Being a part of a revolutionary force in the countryside is a very nomadic way of life. Sometimes you can be walking for hours with up to 25 kilos on your back, fighting a battle, and then continuing your cause non-stop. All this is done with a limited amount of food, both in quantity as well as nutritionally. You have to leave everything you have and commit fully to the cause. You have to be incredibly fit physically as well as mentally. For some reason, while I was reading the text, I felt that Guevara’s form of guerilla warfare is rather doomed to fail. Although the text is highly specific, you have to keep in mind that you have to have adequate people to carry out this kind of warfare. As we know, people, as well as rulers are fallible, and this thought didn’t leave me as I read the text. Guevara makes it seem too easy, just follow these guidelines and you will be successful no matter what, no matter where. This is where I encountered another problem with the text; Guevara bases it all on the successful Cuban revolution Fidel Castro and Guevara led. To universalize warfare solely on one example is ambitious. However, there was lots of stuff that I enjoyed reading. The element of surprise is essential to Guevara’s kind of warfare. Mostly, this means that most fighting occurs at night. Moreover, to read that weapons and ammunition relied solely on the enemy was eye-opening. This kind of warfare is truly revolutionary and low scale, based on scarcity. At the end of it all there was one question pondering my mind, does this text hold any value to violent revolutionary causes today? I hope we will attempt to tackle this question in class.
Before anything else I’d like to share this quote from the book which in a way describes what to Che Guerrilla warfare meant.
“Guerrilla warfare, the basis of the struggle of a people to redeem itself, has diverse characteristics, different facets, even though the essential will for liberation remains the same.”
In essence, this quote is stating that every single instance of Guerrilla warfare is unique and methods and techniques learned and applied in one can not be applicable to another, the only thing that each unique event share is the will and struggle to gain liberation. Although I agree with this statement which describes each action in Guerrilla warfare as though they are occurring for the first time, which they most likely are given the circumstances that Guerrilla warfare entails, it makes the idea or concept that this book is a guideline for future Guerrilla fighters to be redundant. For almost the whole first chapter of the book, Che goes into great detail in describing the perfect characteristics for what a Guerrilla fighter should be or what tactics fighters should use in specific situations and such. Although he states earlier that each instance of war is different and unique, he explains and molds a fit-all strategy for fellow fighters. Even though he describes different fighting types that he has learned about, his theories and experiences are heavily tied to his time in the Cuban movement. What this book does do, is provide basic information for starting Guerrilla movements with existing tactics which have worked for another movement. Even if these tactics do not work on the same level as they have worked for another movement they provide the basic groundwork for establishing a potentially good Guerrilla movement. I found some of his advice to be somewhat redundant, though, he mentions for the Guerrilla fighter to be willing to die for the cause but to be able to retain his life for his death causes more damage to the cause than the death of one soldier.
Overall I found the book to contain some interesting aspects of what it means to be part of a Guerrilla movement, but I did not feel as though some of those aspects were new to me. Even most Guerrilla movement is usually tied to strong social and political reform, I found that the book had very little to do with political ideologies of Guerrilla fighters. Something which I found weird as this book is very much a guidebook on how to become a true Guerrilla fighting for a cause. Yet at the same time, I do see how someone could become a successful Guerrilla fighter following Che’s steps. He makes it sound so easy as though if you follow his steps you could be toppling governments left, right, and center.
While I enjoyed this week’s reading of Che Guevara’s Guerrilla Warfare, I still think it was somewhat held back by its aim of extracting general teachings from the Cuban revolution. If anything, it is very interesting as a historical account of the military strategies and techniques of Fidel’s revolutionary forces, and also provides detail on the conditions and needs of the individual guerrilla fighter. However, I am less convinced about its use as a handbook for successfully waging guerrilla warfare in order to topple one’s own oppressive regime. Marc Becker’s introduction writes that “it has become a historical document rather than a manual or blueprint” (vi), and considering how Che’s two attempts at guerrilla warfare following Cuba failed – in Congo and Bolivia respectively – it isn’t too difficult to understand why.
Even disregarding modern advances in current military technology, Che’s recommendations seem very specific to the case of the Cuban revolutionary struggle in the late 50s. This is completely understandable, and he himself recognises this, directing his advice to “Underdeveloped America”. This leads Che to focus on the countryside as the central point of revolutionary guerrilla warfare. He also emphasises how the support of the local peasant population is key to the guerrilla military apparatus, be it for gathering information, setting up infrastructure, or building the basis for the future revolutionary state. While popular support does seem like a necessary element to any revolution, Che’s description of how to obtain it either omits or takes for granted several factors that were somewhat specific to Batista’s Cuba.
Firstly, there is the case of the Cuban peasantry, which Marc Becker contrasts with that of the Bolivian rural workers when listing some of the criticism directed at Che’s Bolivian campaign. Then, there is Batista himself. While Cuba was in no way unique in terms of its dictatorial regime, Fulgencio Batista was far from competent in keeping a grip on power. He was unable to maintain loyalty within the upper ranks of his army – culminating in an attempted coup – and the Cuban national army was therefore hampered effective in its campaign against the revolutionary guerrilla forces. Batista was also responsible for brutal acts of repression against his opponents, and he ordered multiple cases of torture and arbitrary executions. This served to make him extremely unpopular among almost all of the Cuban population, and as a result Castro was commonly seen as a welcome alternative. In a sense, Batista was a significant contributor to his own overthrow.
Even though they weren’t required reading for this week, the two essays at the end of the Bison Books edition of Guerrilla Warfare were perhaps more useful for considering revolution in a more general case. “Guerrilla Warfare: A Method” takes a more theoretical approach to the question of revolution, while the “Message to the Tricontinental” focuses on the struggle against colonialism and the more recent case of United States imperialism. While these weren’t as historically instructive as the main text of Guerrilla Warfare, they did provide more insight into Che’s own ideas and conceptions about revolution.
Before I read the book, my eyes see a picture of a grenade, on the top right hand corner of it appears to be a point eye range, and beneath both these images is the title “Guerrilla Warfare, and Introduction”. Already I am questioning myself whether this book is actually going to teach me what it means to be in a war and how to go about it. Like, even the fact that someone could write a book about it makes it seem not only revolutionary in our standards, but also part of the Cuban revolution where the main goal was to recruit people, join masses, and fight against the oppressors. And yet, as I read this book my doubts turn into reality and this book goes into great length, very much in detail, and one could tell, with lots of time, dedication, careful choice of words, and cause. I will say somethings that grabbed my attention while trying to understand and accept how someone could really have gone so far as to write a book on how to do war and win. What first struck me was how he clearly states that war is a science (page 9), that it follows laws and influenced by variables, such that if you do not follow the “scientific method”, in this case “the way of the war”, then you will end up losing (page 9). And we see how this strong affirmation is present in the way he writes his whole book and the language he uses. It is all very detailed, and carefully chosen, and he always gives us different scenarios and that every scenario requires different tactics. But the main idea of war as a science is really interesting. What purpose or effect does treating war like science have on our understanding of revolutions, or our lives in general, I don’t know. Changing the subject, I also like how he describes guerrilla soldiers as social reformers and also agrarian revolutionaries, both of which are true in the context of the Cuban Revolution and he argues, true in all cases of revolutions. Even more interesting, is how he also describes guerrilla warfare as an “embryo” (page 12) in which he describes guerrilla warfare as a prelude to other bigger and significant wars. I can understand this comparison, but I find that it also devalues guerrilla warfare, suggesting that it is ultimately not the one that will lead to victory, the one that will lead to victory is a more advanced stage of guerrilla warfare maybe a civil war. Throughout the book his language is quite metaphorical. For example on page 17 he describes one phase of guerilla warfare as like a queen bee with other bees taking over another beehive. Other things he mentions are ammunitions, food, travel kit, geography, the use of animals, hunting tools, tools to make other tools, a diary to keep notes on, tactical strategies such as destroying enemies’ infrastructure, communication, food supply, etc. Like this is a truly a book intended to teach someone who wants to go to war and learn what it takes. I must though point out what he says about terrorism. On page 21 he clearly distinguishes sabotage which for him is “a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare” with terrorism which he say is “ineffective and indiscriminate in its results” that it only kills unnecessary people. Although I agree with him on that point, I would also like to see how he views his vision of guerrilla warfare no less different. In the end, innocent people die, regardless of them being the enemy or not, and both are forms of violence created by a group of people who use an ideology or goal as there source of inspiration and justification. Nevertheless, I just found it very interesting how he clearly demarcates guerrilla warfare with terrorism, and on numerous occasions throughout the book. There is also a sense of iconizing guerrilla soldiers, where he describes them as strong, disciplined, teachers, messengers of revolutions, and willing to die without fear. Also interesting to add to these descriptions, is how on page 33 he says that “in Cuban war of liberation, to abandon a weapon is a grave offence”. There is this further sense of cult and macho solider like attitude, that the war encompasses honor and dignity. One other interesting topic to discuss his view of women in guerrilla warfare. On page 92 he starts off by saying that women play a vital role, but then further down contradicts himself saying they play a “minor role”, and furthermore, says their only role in the guerrilla warfare is to cook for men and help with the technical stuff. I just find this interesting as for someone who is fighting for a noble cause which is agrarian reforms, and against an oppressive enemy who is hurting the people, he still has this gender stereotype problem where in his view women should occupy less significant jobs. There are just 5 more things I would very briefly like to say. I like how on page 121 he says “revolutionary indoctrination is the basis of national security”. He is really making it clear that revolutions, and teaching about it, serve in the interest of the people who are oppressed and need to fight back in order to live. Also on page 127 he says “Cuba is the symbol of nationality renewed” and “Fidel Castro is the symbol of liberation”. These quotes are now starting to idealize these concepts of the revolution further. Now on a more important issue, Che at the end of the book leaves us with a very good reflection question, “is guerrilla warfare the only formula for seizing power in Latin America?” I appreciate this quote because it makes us think that there may be other alternatives, not just violence. At least, this is how I interpreted his reasons to be. Then 2 pages later, on page 145 he says that “revolutions are inevitable because of the conditions under which they are made”. This is true, and he further goes on by saying “he who wages war in a country when he can avoid it, is a criminal, just as he who fails to promote war which cannot be avoided is a criminal”. Once again showing that revolutions are necessary and at times inevitable. At the end of reading this novel we obviously see that to him, guerrilla warfare is the only and best means of winning, and which is why he went to great lengths to write this book. He has in this book brought up good points, and one has to admire his determination and cause. But still, after reading this book, I still find it hard to comprehend how someone could have the “audacity” to write a book that promotes and encourages people to take arms and tell them how to successfully do it. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read.
“An army marches on its stomach,” said Napoleon (or maybe it was Frederick the Great; it’s unclear). But in Guerrilla Warfare, Che Guevara is keen to remind us that an army also marches, rather more prosaically, on its feet. For he repeatedly stresses the importance of shoes, “one of the fundamental accessories in the struggle” (83). “Above everything else,” indeed, it is a vital necessity that a guerrilla army “have adequate shoes” (29). These should be “of the best possible construction” and “one of the first articles laid up in reserve” (50). After all,
it is not possible for a troop to walk without shoes in wooded zones, hilly, with many rocks and thorns. It is very difficult to march without shoes in such conditions; only the natives, and not all of them, can do it. The rest must have shoes. (102)
No wonder that one of the very first tasks of the guerrilla army, once it has liberated even the most limited of zones, is to establish “shoe factories” that “can initially be cobbler installations that replace half-soles on old shoes, expanding afterwards into a series of organized factories with a good average daily production of shoes” (29). Along with an armory, this is one of the “two fundamental industries” a rebel army has to establish–and in fact, it is mentioned in first place (102). Not just for the human combatants, what’s more. The mule train also “should be well supplied with shoes” (85).
These comments on cobbling indicate the practical nature of Che’s guide to guerilla strategy and tactics. Nothing is too mundane to go unsaid. He equally notes the importance, for instance, of salt, and methods of procuring it. There are discussions of how to string a hammock, and how much underwear a fighter should carry (answer: not much). More obviously to the point, there are diagrams outlining how to make a device that can launch Molotov cocktails and how best to train new recruits in target practice without great expenditures of precious ammunition. This is a manual for the would-be revolutionary that leaves little to chance.
But more than this, the focus on footwear is a clue to the specificities and idiosyncrasies of what we’d now call “unconventional warfare.” For “the basic tactic of the guerrilla army is the march,” which is also why “neither slow men nor tired men can be tolerated” (119). The guerrilla band is relentlessly on the move: its “fundamental characteristic [. . .] is mobility” (18). It always attacks far from its base, and is prepared to retreat if necessary. At times it “can dedicate itself exclusively to fleeing from an encirclement”; at other times “it can also change the battle into a counter-encirclement” (19). The guerrilla constantly changes front, redefines the lines of combat, advances, steps back, circles around, advances again. No wonder Che compares tactics in the field to a “minuet” (19). Creativity and innovation are at a premium: “Against the rigidity of classical methods of fighting, the guerrilla fighter invents his own tactics at every minute of the fight” (20-21). The all-important shoes have as much in common with ballet slippers as with hiking boots. As well as mobility, guerrilla warfare requires extreme flexibility. The guerrilla must be prepared to turn, side-step, glide, perform arabesques, and then melt away, always en pointe, in a heightened state of awareness.
The foco theory at the heart of Guevara’s book has long been much maligned. The notion that a small vanguard of rural fighters can create the conditions for its own success failed dismally in many Latin American countries, not least in Bolivia under Che himself. Not many people will now be taking this book as the practical guide that it was initially intended–even though it was anxiously examined as much by the would-be experts in counter-insurgency as by trigger-happy leftists. But there’s still surely something for revolutionaries to learn here on a more abstract level. For instance about the importance of space, of knowing the lay of the land, and finding suitable terrain that best aids your cause and disadvantages your enemy. But also the importance of timing, of the tactic of surprise, of knowing when to break off an engagement and regroup. Or the observation that it is the enemy that will be the best source of your ammunition (another reason why shoe factories are if anything more vital than armories), that nomadic adaptability outweighs even the virtues of ascetic purity and sacrifice that the book also (and less convincingly) preaches.
For if Emma Goldman complained that “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution,” a contemporary Che might respond that the Revolution itself should be a dance, playful and joyous. So go get your shoes.
As I finished reading (to the end of the epilogue), my initial last thoughts are summed up in “The Five P’s” -a saying drilled into my head by my mother. The Five P’s are simply, “Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance.” This is the essence of how I feel about this book. Che writes a detailed “outline” of what is necessary for guerilla warfare to be successful, which ultimately leads to the success of a revolution… supposedly. Now, my knowledge of Che and the Cuban Revolution are incredibly limited, so please forgive any blunders on my part, but from reading this it seems that this revolution was a success, at the very least it was so in the eyes of Che.
He covers a lot of ground for a short book, from the start of a guerilla army to the way in which a successful overthrow should be maintained and how society should change, to even thoughts on how to deal with reactions from capitalism, especially from the States. The main essence I draw from the epilogue is that of Cuban unity, that “an army of six million Cubans will grasp weapons as a single man in order to defend its territory and its Revolution.” The idea that from peasant to worker to those in command will be trained and able to function as an entire unit to defend an ideal, is something that just stirs up emotion, more so if you ignore the use of “man” as opposed to an all-inclusive pronoun.
It is important to note that this book has a direct mention to the role of women in the revolution. There are two things I want to mention here. First is a contradiction made by Che. On page 92, he notes that “despite current belief, she does not create conflicts of a sexual type in the troops.” In the appendices, he writes “it must be emphasized that they [women] can play a destructive part [in the revolution]. The weakness for women that young men have… is well known.” He also mentions in the Role of Women section that women can marry and life as man and wife while in the appendices he says that “it is necessary also to prohibit relations with women” because of the above as well as fear of spies.
Furthermore, while Che originally writes that women can fight alongside the men, and have other important assignments such as communications, while in the epilogue he only talks of “auxiliary” tasks which are in essence the stereo-typical feminine roles such as cooking, cleaning, comforting.
Che’s Guerrilla Warfare was a lot different than my readings for other classes this week. His book is a step-by-step romantic guide to armed resistance and I cant help but feel he would be a little disappointed by the context in which I read his book, sipping my coffee at jj bean. It outlines how to go about overthrowing a non-communist government, with writings on everything from winning local support to which exact guns work best in the mountains to dealing with the sent of fellow comrades.
One aspect of his outline that I appreciated was that he does not call for complete conformity. For example, as he discusses military strategy he says, “ Another fundamental characteristic of the guerrilla soldier is his flexibility, his ability to adapt himself to all circumstances, and to convert to his service all of the accidents of the action. Against the rigidity of classical methods of fighting, the guerrilla fighter invents his own tactics at every minute of the fight and constantly surprises the enemy.” It seems like this space for creativity in resistance is key to success as it breaks from the hegemonic chain of command and encourages a diversity of ideas. That is not to say that Che is campaigning for a non-hierarchical military (he’s not) but, any move in that direction seems like it will create a more adaptable and ultimately successful resistance. He also encourages respect for ideas and knowledge specific to the land on which the fighters are engaged. “Conduct toward the civil population ought to be regulated by a large respect for all the rules and traditions of the people of the zone, in order to demonstrate effectively, with deeds, the moral superiority of the guerrilla fighter over the oppressing soldier.’ Again this policy listens rather than overpowers and in theory I believe would encourage exchange and growth within the resistance.
Another interesting move that Che makes in the book is his attempt to build the “Guerrilla Fighter.” Through the chapters he builds a ideal fighter that is kind, compassionate, morally flawless and willing to die without regret. To quote a particularly romantic passage, “To the stoicism imposed by the difficult conditions of warfare should be added an austerity born of rigid self-control that will prevent a single excess, a single slip, whatever the circumstances. The guerrilla soldier should be an ascetic.” Clearly, Che is suggesting a type of person that would be difficult to find in real life. However, I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing and seems to represent an goal to work towards for resistance fighters. It guides them towards a kind of moral honor rather power gained though physical domination. I think this is a real positive in his vision and separates his book from more typical military strategy. Overall, I thought the book was an interesting read and an informative window into Che’s optimism for the revolutionary movements of the world immediately after the Cuban revolution.
and if anyone still needs it, I found a link for the movie next week w/subtitles –
Che – Part 1
Teaching class was okay. I liked it but I was unsure whether it was that enjoyable for the other people involved. Saw a few cellphones out (If you think I’m talking about you I almost definitely am) but who am I to judge. For Cartucho we found that the text was so dynamic we didn’t really feel the need to look elsewhere for class material. So it felt more like a book club than a class. But I liked that.
We divided our questions into three main categories: trauma, violence and the role of women.
For trauma I was mostly interested in whether or not the protagonist was traumatized. I still don’t think I’ve decided. I thought that was an interesting discussion.
For violence we looked at a few segments specifically and tried to deduce what purpose the violence was serving in the narrative, if any.
The role of women brought up a lot of questions around motherhood, inter generational knowledge and implicit work/strength. I think that any of the sections we chose as discussion topics for each subject were likely interchangeable as there was so much going on in each vignette. I enjoyed hearing about other people’s experiences with the book, especially around the scene where the soldiers become obsessed with the baby.
I also like the semi-circle formation (maybe that’s just because I was in front) and going around in a circle because I think it encouraged everyone to speak up without being forceful about it.