Northern Ireland (merged thread)

[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.

[Steve Blair]

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.

This has come up before, and I tend to believe you're correct, GS. Although there are other factors that can come into play as well (mainly politics). For example, if a popular leader sends troops into an area where only a few are killed over an extended period (and that leader enjoys the support of the press), the situation is manageable. If those conditions are not in place (as in media interest, lack of domestic popularity and/or a sudden spike in losses) then it's not so easy to maintain.

[Tom Odom]

This has come up before, and I tend to believe you're correct, GS. Although there are other factors that can come into play as well (mainly politics). For example, if a popular leader sends troops into an area where only a few are killed over an extended period (and that leader enjoys the support of the press), the situation is manageable. If those conditions are not in place (as in media interest, lack of domestic popularity and/or a sudden spike in losses) then it's not so easy to maintain.

There is also the reverse of this rule, especially in the golden age of European imperalism and colonialism. What I am referring to was the role of the jingoistic press (also very real in the US). Three cases pop into mind:

A. The British press and Chinese Gordon's failed attempt--he paid with his head--attempt to embarrass #10 Downing into intervening against the Mahdi.

B. The follow up to the Gordon episode some 15 years later when the French sent a mission to claim Fashoda'; this threatened the UK considered its own turf in the Sudan and Uganda. This necessitated the reconquest of the Sudan. The British press role in whipping up the enthusiasm for this was large. Indeed it was Winston Churchill's first stab as a correspondent; one literally nearly cvut short in his ride with the ill-fated 21st Lancers at Omdurman. (see photo below of Omdurman monument)

C. In the case of the US, one has to look no farther than the USS Maine as a cause celebre for getting the US into a war with Spain.


I would say in the modern age, the same reverse rule can apply. Consider our intervention in Somalia, once driven by the viedo camera and pictures of dying Somali chldren. Our exit from Somalia would be driven by the very same phenomenon, media coverage of the Task Force Ranger fight.

In the backlash of Somalia, we would not respond to the Rwandan genocide six months later despite media coverage of the slaughter until the refugee crisis (again covered by the media) made it impossible to ignore.

Finally I would offer that similar pressures continue to push for an intervention in Darfur.

Best

Tom

[LawVol]

I agree that the press can and is playing a role in the Darfur issue. I can definately envision US troops there. However, I don't think these people have thought this through, which seems surprising given the backlash with Iraq. If we intervene in Darfur, we will certainly face opposition that will likely take the form of an insurgency (Janjaweed) with support by the Sudanese government. This is essentially a mirror image of Iraq. And when it happens, the two-headed monster of the press will turn on the military. Its a lose-lose situation.

[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