Results 1 to 20 of 132

Thread: How Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default the character of the war changes

    I"m posting a couple of links to LTTE and supporter websites to demonstrate how sophisticated their media operation is.

    http://www.eelamweb.com/

    http://www.tamilnet.com/

    Also a link to an article on how the LTTE's defeat will impact the drug trade in S. Asia. I can see where the loss of the LTTE merchant ships would have a significant impact, but the drug trade is an open source business, so it will be interesting to see who fills this void.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/C...ow/4595554.cms

    Thus, over the years, drug enforcement agencies in Mumbai have arrested several Sri Lankan Tamils, and charged them with smuggling narcotics. "The accused were found to be highly motivated. They were taking the risk not just for the money, but because they believed in the LTTE's cause,'' said a public prosecutor. "The LTTE started using the revenue from narcotics to finance its armed struggle ever since the conflict started in 1983,'' said intelligence expert B Raman. However, the LTTE's role in the narcotics business was different from other international gangs such as the `D' Company, which indulges in direct selling of drugs.

    Prof G H Peiris, a Sri Lankan security expert who writes for the US magazine ‘Jane's Defence Weekly', believes that the LTTE's involvement in the international drug trade was largely in the form of bulk delivery of heroin and cannabis from producing areas in Asia to consuming countries. He said that there did not appear to be any extensive involvement of the LTTE in drug ‘peddling' in the retail market or participation in opium growing and refining of heroin.
    Posted by tequila,
    Unfortunately I think the U.S. has little leverage over Sri Lanka at the moment, which is probably much more interested in embracing the PRC, especially given the Rajapaksa brothers' personal interest such relations. The Sri Lankan media is naturally full of denunciations of the West in general for seeking to investigate human rights violations and hinder military action, which in their view did nothing but protect the Tigers.
    Yep, and if you look at the LTTE websites they have links to all the articles where prominent politicians and human rights groups are calling war crime investigations. Of course you have to wonder to what end? In my opinion the character of the war has changed from a shooting war to lawfare.

    Posted by Bob's World,
    My assessment would be that the LTTE made a major strategic error in transitioning to phase III operations too soon and attempting to fight this as more of a civil war than as an insurgency. Essentially setting up the "weak state vs strong state" scenario which rarely ends well for the weaker.
    I don't think they transitioned too soon, as this strategy worked very well for them. Remember this war has been ongoing for over 30 years, and over that time the LTTE built up a powerful para-military and military force, so they could take and hold terrain. Since Sri Lanka is an island nation, they couldn't establish needed safehavens across the border, and they needed their safehavens to facilitate recruiting, training, planning, business, practice governance, etc. It is important to note that while they didn't have a safehaven for their military, the LTTE did establish a very large and politically active global diaspora. This is now the fighting wing for the current lawfare taking place IMO.

    The LTTE's biggest mistake was their failure to recognize the transformation that took place in the Sri Lanka government and military. The military was better trained, larger, better equipped, and most importantly had a political mandate to destory the LTTE. The LTTE probably should have given up land and dispersed and started over with low level insurgency and terrorist acts, but obviously that is a hard pill for anyone to swallow. Seems like that decision hits all three factors: interests (safehaven, psychological victory, etc.), pride (fight until the last man), and fear (what happens if we give up our hard earned territory?). The LTTE strategy seemed to be, survive long enough to get the the international community to intervene in their behalf, but obviously that didn't happen. Like many defeated armies they were stuck in yesterday's strategy.

    Civil war versus insurgency is somewhat loaded, but in general (begining with our civil war) one side isn't interested in overhrowing the established government, but rather succeeding from the establishment. The LTTE didn't want to overthrow the government in Colombo, they wanted to establish their own homeland. It would have been a different fight altogether if they wanted to overthrow the government and establish controll over the entire nation. One that they couldn't have won.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 05-31-2009 at 03:31 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Sri Lanka rebels offer to lay down arms
    By Culpeper in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 09:50 AM
  2. PRC builds port in Sri Lanka
    By davidbfpo in forum South Asia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 12:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •