Northern Ireland (merged thread)

[wm]

Saw this BBC on line story

The British Army's emergency operation in Northern Ireland comes to an end at midnight on Tuesday after 38 years.

The link is here

. . .And folks in the the US are getting antsy after only 6 years in AF and 4 in IZ.

[tequila]

Operation Banner is the Army's longest continuous campaign in its history with more than 300,000 personnel serving and 763 directly killed by paramilitaries.

The intensity and pace of operations is an order of magnitude lower. The monthly KIA average in Northern Ireland was 1.67, for instance. The total number of people, civilians and combatants included, killed in NI over a thirty-year period is under 4,000 --- that would be a decent two-month stretch in Iraq.

[wm]

The intensity and pace of operations is an order of magnitude lower. The monthly KIA average in Northern Ireland was 1.67, for instance. The total number of people, civilians and combatants included, killed in NI over a thirty-year period is under 4,000 --- that would be a decent two-month stretch in Iraq.

Your point about the order of magnitude is true, in absolute terms. However, I suspect that in relative terms (size of forces engaged, total populations, etc), the impact may be more comparable. Also, I suspect that using a monthly KIA average is misleading. Were one to plot British Army deaths over the 38 years, it would probably show a curve skewed to the left (i.e., many more deaths early on in the 38 years).

[Granite_State]

Your point about the order of magnitude is true, in absolute terms. However, I suspect that in relative terms (size of forces engaged, total populations, etc), the impact may be more comparable. Also, I suspect that using a monthly KIA average is misleading. Were one to plot British Army deaths over the 38 years, it would probably show a curve skewed to the left (i.e., many more deaths early on in the 38 years).

I'm sure you're right, but I still question what kind of value Northern Ireland holds in looking at Iraq. Fighting a terrorist group with sometimes barely 100 active members (Provisional IRA), an hour's flight from your capital, versus counter-insurgency/sectarian peace-keeping with 150,000 troops thousands of miles from home? Doesn't seem like much to draw on there, in a strategic sense anyway.

[tequila]

Your point about the order of magnitude is true, in absolute terms. However, I suspect that in relative terms (size of forces engaged, total populations, etc), the impact may be more comparable. Also, I suspect that using a monthly KIA average is misleading. Were one to plot British Army deaths over the 38 years, it would probably show a curve skewed to the left (i.e., many more deaths early on in the 38 years).

This is possibly true, but still I think Iraq represents a massively different sort of fight. The worst year in NI for the British was 1972, when 149 soldiers were killed out of a force of 30k or so. No other year comes close to this in NI, and this still represents a casualty rate below a similar year for the U.S. in Iraq.

Moreover, you never saw anything like this in Northern Ireland. Can you imagine 500-lb. bombs hitting snipers in Derry or British tanks firing main gun rounds in Belfast? Combat simply was never at that high of a level. The horrific Omagh bombing that finally put an end to violent Republicanism killed 29 people. 58 Iraqis were killed yesterday, pretty much without any news coverage at all because of the soccer win. The level of violence, both against U.S. forces and within the Iraqi population, is vastly different. The best evidence, beyond the daily body count, is in the size of refugee flows. AFAIK there never was any significant mass refugee flow out of NI. Compare that to over 4m Iraqi displaced, 2m outside of the country.

[wm]

This is possibly true, but still I think Iraq represents a massively different sort of fight. The worst year in NI for the British was 1972, when 149 soldiers were killed out of a force of 30k or so. No other year comes close to this in NI, and this still represents a casualty rate below a similar year for the U.S. in Iraq.

Moreover, you never saw anything like this in Northern Ireland. Can you imagine 500-lb. bombs hitting snipers in Derry or British tanks firing main gun rounds in Belfast? Combat simply was never at that high of a level. The horrific Omagh bombing that finally put an end to violent Republicanism killed 29 people. 58 Iraqis were killed yesterday, pretty much without any news coverage at all because of the soccer win. The level of violence, both against U.S. forces and within the Iraqi population, is vastly different. The best evidence, beyond the daily body count, is in the size of refugee flows. AFAIK there never was any significant mass refugee flow out of NI. Compare that to over 4m Iraqi displaced, 2m outside of the country.

Again, no disputing your points. But, the devastation in SWA is half a world away, and the co-citizens of the military intervention force being killed in SWA tend to be contract help and reporters who largely have chosen to be there in order to fatten their wallets or their prestige--a freely chosen risk. In NI, everyday British citizens were unwilling targets in a location just a short boat ride or airplane flight away from the big island.
I also do not think that the "vote with your feet" position that results in refugees is germane in NI--most of the folks there were too committed to a lifestyle choice to be able to pick up and run to escape the violence.

[LawVol]

I read something some time ago that essentially argued that a nation's public posed less of a problem for operations of a smaller scale with less PR despite the length. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I do not have more than a basic understanding of the NI operations, but does this ring true for the British? Perhaps this is a lesson we can take from it? Also, did the British employ more police-like tactics rather than all out combat tactics?

[Granite_State]

I read something some time ago that essentially argued that a nation's public posed less of a problem for operations of a smaller scale with less PR despite the length. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I do not have more than a basic understanding of the NI operations, but does this ring true for the British?

Seems like it to me. I think Max Boot made that point well in his The Savage Wars of Peace, about the many small wars America fought pre-WWII, mostly with Marines in Central America, and largely out of the public eye.

Whether this still holds true in the age of the internet and instant global media coverage is another question.

[tequila]

I highly doubt "lifestyle choice" was that great of a deterrent factor for potential Northern Irish refugees. I think it was the fact that the average NI citizen did not feel threatened enough by daily violence to make leaving worthwhile.

Everyday British citizens, while they did have to live with an ever-present Irish terror threat, never died at anywhere near the rate that American soldiers are dying in Iraq today.

Note also that the British ended by negotiating a settlement with the enemy, not defeating them.

[slapout9]

LawVol, Jedburgh posted this a couple of weeks ago. It is full of details and their tactics. You might want to take a look.

http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf

[Rex Brynen]

After 12 years and thousands of witness statements, the official "Bloody Sunday" inquiry report was issued today--you'll find the full text here.

According to the BBC report of PM Cameron's statement to the House of Commons:

Bloody Sunday killings 'unjustified and unjustifiable'
Page last updated at 16:06 GMT, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 17:06 UK


The Bloody Sunday killings were unjustified and unjustifiable, the Prime Minster has said.

Thirteen marchers were shot dead on 30 January 1972 in Londonderry when British paratroopers opened fire on crowds at a civil rights demonstration.

...

Fourteen others were wounded, one later died. The Saville Report is heavily critical of the Army and found that soldiers fired the first shot.

Prime Minister David Cameron said he was "deeply sorry".

He said that the findings of the Saville Report were "shocking".

A huge cheer erupted in Guildhall Square in Derry as Mr Cameron delivered the findings which unequivocally blamed the Army for one of the most controversial days in Northern Ireland's history.

...

Mr Cameron said:

• No warning had been given to any civilians before the soldiers opened fire
• None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers
• Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying
• None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting
• Many of the soldiers lied about their actions
• The events of Bloody Sunday were not premeditated
• Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein, was present at the time of the violence and "probably armed with a submachine gun" but did not engage in "any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"

The head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, said he fully supported Mr Cameron's apology.

...

[JMA]

The sad follow on from here is that:

Bloody Sunday: Soldiers may face prosecution over 'unjustifiable' killings

I agree with the following quote from the news article:

Lord Maginnis of Drumglas, an Ulster Unionist peer, said the report was "one-eyed" in its emphasis on just 14 of the 180 violent deaths in the province in the preceding year.

As per my comments on Algeria... why single out these acts?

By all means prosecute these soldiers if there is a case to answer but lets see the next inquiry into the other deaths begin immediately.

[Red Rat]

Unsurprisingly the strong feeling in my quarters is that it would be duplicitous at best if soldiers were prosecuted for past wrongs committed in the heat of the moment, when under the Good Friday Agreement terrorists received an amnesty.

It will be interesting to see what the various Republican agendas in Northern Ireland will make from this.

Of note, although it rarely makes the news, is that the levels of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland have (IMHO) now passed those seen in the 1990s and are approaching 1980s levels. They do not make the news because they do not have the Sein Feinn propaganda machine behind them and they have been largely ineffective in killing people (although marginally more effective in maiming). As ever though, with trial and error they are gaining in competence.

[Rex Brynen]

Of note, although it rarely makes the news, is that the levels of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland have (IMHO) now passed those seen in the 1990s and are approaching 1080s levels.

1080s levels? Bloody Vikings!

[davidbfpo]

An interesting viewpoint by General Sir Michael Rose, a soldier who served in Londonderry on the day and rose to fame later, notably in Bosnia:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...criminals.html

Will Saville like enquiries re-appear in today's campaigns?

Nor should the effect of the Saville Inquiry on the British soldiers fighting today in Afghanistan be underestimated. Some will be the sons and even grandsons of those being accused of unlawful killing.

Even if they are not, they will be asking themselves whether each time they open fire on the Taliban, they might not, in some distant future inquiry, be asked to justify their actions. This is no way to go to war.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz0qy1gnPm5

I have not read today's news, but do recall watching from the "mainland" how Northern Ireland plunged into violence after 'Bloody Sunday'.

The points made in a pre-publication article in The Spectator strike a chord with me:

(On Pg.5) In 1999, in an otherwise unwise Radio 4 interview, Colonel Wilford, the man who commanded 1 Para that day, gave vent to the feelings of many. ‘I have to ask,’ he said, ‘what about Bloody Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and every day of the week?

‘What about Bloody Omagh? What about Bloody Warrenpoint, Enniskillen, Hyde Park, or Bloody Aldershot and Brighton — bloody everything the IRA have ever touched.’

It is a good question. Colonel Wilford, like his men, lives in his retirement wondering whether the law will come for him. Yet one other commander, a paramilitary commander, has, like certain other men who fired that day, never looked back and shares none of the worries of British soldiers. The man I watched grandstanding in the Guildhall of Londonderry is too busy being Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. And nobody, but nobody, would order an inquiry into him. Or any of the other bloody things he and his bloody movement ever bloody touched. This is one-directional justice. Each individual will have to work out for themselves whether this constitutes the mature behaviour of a democracy at its very best, or a wasteful exercise in appeasing a political sympathy that has been appeased for too many years.

Link:http://newstaging.spectator.widearea...y-sunday.thtml

[Rex Brynen]

Nor should the effect of the Saville Inquiry on the British soldiers fighting today in Afghanistan be underestimated. Some will be the sons and even grandsons of those being accused of unlawful killing.

Even if they are not, they will be asking themselves whether each time they open fire on the Taliban, they might not, in some distant future inquiry, be asked to justify their actions. This is no way to go to war.

Of course, it might also be argued that had some of the paras "thought twice" in 1972 some of the Troubles might have been a little less troubled.

[JMA]

Unsurprisingly the strong feeling in my quarters is that it would be duplicitous at best if soldiers were prosecuted for past wrongs committed in the heat of the moment, when under the Good Friday Agreement terrorists received an amnesty.

Yes the Good Friday Agreement. You are saying it was not a general amnesty?

It will be interesting to see what the various Republican agendas in Northern Ireland will make from this.

Hay?

Of note, although it rarely makes the news, is that the levels of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland have (IMHO) now passed those seen in the 1990s and are approaching 1980s levels. They do not make the news because they do not have the Sein Feinn propaganda machine behind them and they have been largely ineffective in killing people (although marginally more effective in maiming). As ever though, with trial and error they are gaining in competence.

Very interesting... and whom may I ask is behind this?

[Red Rat]

Yes the Good Friday Agreement. You are saying it was not a general amnesty?

I don't think so. Under the terms terrorists convicted get an early (immediate) release, so we can still prosecute terrorists for past crimes but it is not really achieving anything. Of course if the cease-fire goes then the early release goes. The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) does not apply to members of the security forces.

Very interesting... and whom may I ask is behind this?

CIRA and RIRA, the 'Continuity' and 'Real' IRA respectively. Some hardline Republicans were against the GFA and went their own way, they have got better over the years and seem to be tapping into some PIRA expertise and stores. No strong polical support, but enough bored youths in Counties South Armargh, Fermanagh and Derry to keep things ticking over.

[JMA]

Unsurprisingly the strong feeling in my quarters is that it would be duplicitous at best if soldiers were prosecuted for past wrongs committed in the heat of the moment, when under the Good Friday Agreement terrorists received an amnesty.

It depends doesn't it. Which government department would be doing the prosecuting? Now if it were up to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office...