How Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE

[davidbfpo]

Niel,

Thinking a little about LTTE and the 'ruthless' approach. First LTTE were themselves ruthless, which helps explain India's decision to exit. Throughout the war no all Tamils sided with LTTE - once they had been confined to the Jaffna area. LTTE were not the only targets of the Sri Lankan state, IIRC a left wing revolt amongst the Sinhalese was repressed brutally before LTTE "took to the stage".

LTTE ran an effective PR campaign abroad, amidst the diaspora, but many in that community only co-operated from fear. Their PR failed to gain traction amidst a wider audience - including the Tamils in southern India. Compare the LTTE abroad to other Indian insurgent groups, who has heard of them? Very few.

The war went on so long and only spectaculars, e.g. Colombo airport attack, got external attention, so Sri Lanka knew few would oppose a 'ruthless' approach.

Were the LTTE exhausted by the end?

[tequila]

Wilf - Are you wondering why the Israelis can't fire 155mm artillery into Palestinian towns at will? I really doubt it is the U.S. holding the IDF back, perhaps you should ask them.

Bill - Can you cite a single serious example of the "losers" taking the "winners" to trial? Where has this happened where the so-called "winners" didn't deserve it? Do you think that, say, the Bosnian Serbs are being unjustly persecuted for the "battle" of Srebrenica? Or perhaps the Hutu supremacist FAR shouldn't face any consequences for their counterinsurgency "techniques"? Or maybe we need to take a second look at Charles Taylor's record from a more understanding perspective. And I don't know why everyone hated on Saddam Hussein - don't people understand that the Kurds and Shiites were violent too? After all, Saddam's tactics really brought the whole Kurdish-Arab conflict to a swift end --- if we'd just allowed him to "finish the job" back in 1991, we wouldn't even be talking about a Kirkuk problem now, would we?

[Bill Moore]

Cavguy,

You may find some of these links useful. Most are from Tamil websites, so of course they're bias, but professional. The conflict continues, though the means for resisting have changed (for now).

http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=31156

Given the failure of the international community's responsibility to protect the Tamil people during the slaughter and during the post-massacre collective internment in Manik Farm, new national and transnational litigation strategies must be explored by all actors supporting the cause of Tamil justice so that substantive remedy can be afforded to the thousands of Tamil victims.

http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=31091

Unavoidable Politics
Many young British Tamils, as do their non-Tamil peers, profess an aversion to the morally questionable arena of politics. ‘I am not into politics; I believe in human rights’ some say. But politics and human rights are inextricably linked. To try and improve human rights whilst turning a blind eye to the politics driving abuses and repression is not only futile but foolish.

An attempt to mobilize the Diaspora youth to take political action.

http://www.tamilcanadian.com/news/

News posts from the Tamil Diaspora in Canada, also contains links to their version of the history of the conflict, etc.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article...ces/67156.aspx

The Commission recommended on 15 December that member states suspend the preferential trade terms after a Commission report published in October found “significant shortcomings” in Sri Lanka's compliance with its human-rights commitments under the scheme, known as the GSP+ regime.

Sri Lankan officials say that the suspension is unfair because it refers to the situation on the ground when the country was at war against Tamil insurgents. They argue that the situation has much improved since the Tamil Tigers were defeated last year. EU diplomats dispute this view and say that the problems are not all linked to the Tamil situation.

I'm sure further bankrupting Sri Lanka will improve humanitarian conditions in Sri Lanka.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-to-surrender/

Good picture of Diaspora protesting outside the White House. Article provides some interesting insights, but putting it in context it was written shortly after the LTTE's military defeat.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf - Are you wondering why the Israelis can't fire 155mm artillery into Palestinian towns at will? I really doubt it is the U.S. holding the IDF back, perhaps you should ask them.

Ken White is correct. My point is the US killed 12 civilians in A'Stan yesterday, with no condemnation from the UN, EU, or anyone and the theatre commander, McChrystal was not accused of war crimes.
....and yes, this gets talked about a lot here. How is something "OK" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but almost exactly the same action "not OK" in Gaza?

[M-A Lagrange]

Some excellent paper have been released by ICRC on the Sri Lanka and LTTE offensive.Especially concerning its impact on the practice of war and restriction of humanitarian field.
This also echoes with Wilf questions. Basically it is not Ok to kill civilians in Irak or Afganistan.
Following Sri Lanka and Swat valley offensives, ICRC even went up to call for a new round of Geneva Convention discussions to addapt and extend civilian protection to new forms of war.
All available on ICRC website.

[tequila]

How is something "OK" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but almost exactly the same action "not OK" in Gaza?

"Almost" exactly?

Call me when U.S. forces kill over 250 children in Marjah, or when Marjah turns into one of the most densely-populated parts of the world.

Also, like I said, do you guys have any real examples of an "unjust" war crimes prosecution by the ICRC (which the U.S. does not even support) or even any solid examples of how the U.S. or the West is losing "global influence" (I thought we didn't really care how the rest of the world thought of us, Ken, since they are fated to hate us/be jealous of us no matter what?) due to our insistence on care for civilians in wartime?

[William F. Owen]

Call me when U.S. forces kill over 250 children in Marjah, or when Marjah turns into one of the most densely-populated parts of the world.

Just in Marjah, or in the 2003 invasion? Amiriyah in 1991?

Moreover population density is highly variable and context specific, and I've never seen it specified in ROE.

Point being, in Afghanistan alone since 2001, as a result of US military action you have:
direct deaths: at least 5,568 - 8,360
indirect deaths in initial invasion: 3,200 - 20,000
direct & indirect deaths: 8,768 - 28,360

You can argue all you want about the accuracy of these figures. Folks are rarely swayed by facts.
Now let us be clear. If it really mattered, air strikes and artillery would simply not be used in Afghanistan. - but this is the real world and war is extremely complicated, messy and unpredictable, so civilians will always die, once you start using force. American lives matter more to Americans than Afghans. - and that rule applies for most peoples.

My point being it is easy to pontificate about levels of force used, when it is not your civilian population under fire, and your own strategic requirements are far less pressing.

[Ken White]

of little real worth so I don't pay them much heed...

even any solid examples of how the U.S. or the West is losing "global influence" (I thought we didn't really care how the rest of the world thought of us, Ken, since they are fated to hate us/be jealous of us no matter what?) due to our insistence on care for civilians in wartime?

I do not know if we're losing global influence, nor do I or most Americans particularly care. I also believe that said 'influence' is predicated to a great extent on the strength of the USD. What I do know is that our popularity fluctuates wildly but has never been great so far as the rest of the world is concerned.

Said popularity does go up when we save someone from from a bad day (which happens a lot) and it goes down when we throw our weight around or screw something up (which happens even more often). In my observation, our popularity was not great in 1947 (first year I paid attention) and has been on a generally downhill slope with only occasional upticks since. mid to immediate post Viet Nam was the lowest point I've seen. Iraq was just a slight downturn compared to VN.

The fact that no one like to be bailed out of difficulty by someone else also intrudes; immediate gratitude turns to resentment...

All that to reiterate that I and many I know do not really care (a few I know do care -- but not a great deal...) what the rest of the world thinks of us; that our 'global influence' is and off and on thing dependent on many factors; and that the fact that we espouse one rule for ourselves and varied more stringent rules for others merely makes us hypocritical -- the effect of that on our popularity or influence is indeterminable and infinitely variable. That effect has nothing to do with what I said or why I said it.

Our 'insistence' on care for civilians in wartime is a totally practical thing. Killing or harming too many has adverse military effect; we're simply trying to avoid that. That 'concern' is enhanced nowadays for propaganda reasons and to be politically correct and placate the American left. I suspect much of it would go out the window if we had a real war on our hands. You read this? (LINK). Shows what happens when the gloves are removed, whole different attitude. And the American left was in charge then...

[Backwards Observer]

The fact that no one like to be bailed out of difficulty by someone else also intrudes; immediate gratitude turns to resentment...

Reminds me of something a nice old Chinese guy told me, he started out as an orphan working in the Malayan tin mines before WW2 and ended up quite successful. He said, "In this life, don't hurt anyone...but don't help anyone either." I used to think he was joking.