How Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE

[Bob's World]

The rise of an insurgent group should be seen by government primarily as a clear metric that they are missing the mark in major way. The government should then exercise the rule of law in a just fashion with the illegal actor (the insurgent), while as the same time focusing on what it is they are doing wrong and need to address.

In no way does the rise of an insurgent group mean that that group is the solution to the problem of poor governance. Too few George Washington's, and far too many Adolf Hitlers out there who emerge to take advantage of these situations. Again though, it is best I believe to see insurgency as a condition that exists within a populace, and not an organization that rises to take advantage of that condition. The organizations that rise may be worse than the current government. It is the condition that is important and must be addressed. A government that refuses to evolve, that refuses to recognize and address the condition of insurgency deserves what it gets; sadly it is the populace that loses out, as they are the ones caught in the middle, and often have one bad government defeated only to be made subject to one that is worse.

[Dayuhan]

A government that refuses to evolve, that refuses to recognize and address the condition of insurgency deserves what it gets; sadly it is the populace that loses out, as they are the ones caught in the middle, and often have one bad government defeated only to be made subject to one that is worse.

Evolution or revolution, take your pick...

Unfortunately, the people who run many governments threatened by revolution are, in effect, dinosaurs, and would not survive evolution. They would rather try to suppress a revolution and take the risk of losing than submit to an evolutionary process that they (often accurately) believe would inevitably lead to their extinction.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World,

The rise of an insurgent group should be seen by government primarily as a clear metric that they are missing the mark in major way. The government should then exercise the rule of law in a just fashion with the illegal actor (the insurgent), while as the same time focusing on what it is they are doing wrong and need to address.

It appears that your in view there is an acceptable political solution for all governments under attack by an insurgent group. An arrangement that somehow addresses all the core issues of all potential belligerent groups. An arrangment that will void the need and desire for conflict; and if a government doesn't identify this arrangment they failed to govern well.

I don't think these arguments stand up to examination. Simply look at the extreme right movement in the U.S. with their fantasy of overthrowing the U.S. government, so they can develop a segregated society and kill off all the Jews. The likes of the Aryan Nation, KKK, etc. have clearly stated their beefs against anyone not white and Christian, and they see a Jewish conspiracy in every story. While admittedly a lame movement, none the less how should our government address their core issues?

In Iraq the Sunni extremists want to establish AQ's version of Sharia law, which really means they just want to run the show and exploit their people, since the vast majority of AQ in Iraq are simply criminals. The various Shi'a groups supported by Iran also want to run the show, and of course the Kurds want their own homeland in the midst of this madness (perhaps the only legitimate political claim). A government that fails to address all these underlying conditions is not a failure in my book, but if they fail to defeat those who are violently opposed to them then they will definitely fail.

If you're a government leader or advisor in a developing nation and maybe 10-15 percent of the populact wants to install a Marxist government by implementing a violent over throw of the government, the government has obviously failed, because they only satisfied 85-90 percent of the populace. Should the government offer an olive branch to the Marxists? Shold they offer a shared power arrangement with the Marxists? Should they simply admit they're right even if the majority wants nothing to do with them, hell just go ahead and dissolve the current government (which again has obviously failed)?

Addressing underlying issues is hardly a new idea; however, in many situations it remains in the realm of wishful fantasy. All issues in the world do not evolve around government, but all governments have responsibilites to protect the integrity of their State and protect their citizens. If we disregard the value of actually commiting to the fight or either severing our relationship with a failed government (yes there are bad governments, we all agree with you), we'll instead linger in a perpetual stalemate that results in generations knowing nothing else but conflict and hate. Make a tough decision now or a tougher decision later, but get off the middle ground, it is not decisive. Our efforts to wage a kinder type of war has resulted in prolonged suffering and misery for millions.

The hatred in Sri Lanka runs deep on both sides of the ethnic divide. Does anyone think that Prabakaran and his LTTE organization would have laid down their arms if the Gov of Sri Lanka outlawed discrimination against Tamils and let them have some (not complete seperation from the State) politicial autonomy? Do you really think most Tamils wanted to live under the brut Prabakaran? The military solution was appropriate based off the behavior of the LTTE during previous ceasefires. Peace was not their objective.

Government policies can't mandate people's feelings, and we all know the government is not always the answer. During our reconstruction efforts in the South after our Civil War our government mandates failed to address the deep rooted racism, hate and fear among peoples. The only way to bring any degree of peace and a slight protection to the blacks living in the South was to employ sufficient security forces (which we never did). It still took over a hundred years of bloodshed to address many of the main racial issues in our country, but many still exist. The truth in general is rather simple and sad, people fear and sometimes hate other people that are not like them. How many places are we going to deploy our forces and how many years will they stay there to address the issue of hatred?

Sri Lanka's military victory was a tough earned victory that definitely qualifies as a victory. I too suspect another Tamil separatist movement will emerge in time, but that seems to be the natural course of history in countries with deep seated racial issues. If we really want to help, we need to get off the war crimes kick, and assist the Government render aid to the Tamils.

[Cavguy]

The Sri Lankans won, you can't steal their victory with promises of a future conflict, so their military victory doesn't count. It definitely counts. I too suspect another Tamil separatist movement will emerge in time, that is the general path of history in conflicts with deep roots.

Exactly. The LTTE was soundly defeated, and with it the Tamils hopes for a separate state. It also left them isolated, impoverished, and exhausted. My essay was an attempt to briefly capture what happened. Some writers imply that Sri Lanka won because they woke up one day and decided to use "at all costs" tactics. Baloney. They were using those from the start, by 2007 they simply got the upper hand in resources to win due to their own improvements and the LTTE's self inflicted wounds.

Bob is right, of course the Tamils can rise again, and they may. The LTTE's refusal to abandon its objectionable tactics (suicide bombing, chemical bombs, terror) deprived the Tamils of a crucial requirement - external political support. By 2005 the Tamils had no allies other than their expats, no champion in the international community because of the character of their campaign.

Any future Tamil insurgency would have even less chance of a "conventional" victory given the government's increased strength. A transition to political (even non-violent) insurgency vice military may have a better chance of success if it attracts international sympathy.

[Bob's World]

My point is that the LTTE in Sri Lanka has been defeated; but that the conditions of insurgency are probably even stronger than they were before.

We need to not confuse the two. I agree that extreme, violent groups must be dealt with, and often they must be dealt with harshly; but my point is that in so doing one must understand that the group they are dealing with exists because the conditions of insurgency exist and feeds upon those conditions and that the defeat of the insurgent group is a very different thing from the defeat of the conditions of insurgency.

The majority viewpoint sees insurgency from the perspective of the counterinsurgent as something caused by the insurgent, or perhaps even caused by some malevolent outside force (conducting UW) that comes in and radicalizes a populace to turn against them.

This is wishful political BS. I believe that one takes a much healthier and more accurate perspective when one sees insurgency not as an organization that rises against the government, but rather as a condition that exists within the perceptions of some segment of the populace due to the actions (or inactions) of the government. Populaces do not fail governments, it is governments that fail populaces.

Certainly this condition, these perceptions of poor governance are exploited by those with their own agenda. Inside actors with bad intent will attempt to use them to rise to power. Outside actors will come in and conduct UW, and employ PSYOP to "radicalize" the populace in enhancing the conditions of insurgency by building on the already existing perceptions of poor governance. States do this. AQ does this as well. But none of it takes root if the perceptions of poor governance, if the conditions of insurgency do not already exist in spades.

So, the LTTE is defeated. Great, and so what? What happens next? If everyone is too busy celebrating the great victory and thinks they are somehow "mission complete" simply because the initial military operation is over (sound familiar Iraq vets?), then they are in for a harsh surprise, probably sooner than later.

Defeat of the insurgent group is like crossing the LD, you still have to get to the objective in order to win. In insurgency the objective is addressing the conditions of insurgency, and that onus rests firmly on the civil government. My assessment is that the government of Sri Lanka is not ready to do for the Tamil segment of its populace today what the government of the U.S. did for its African American populace in the 60s. Make real concessions, make them the law of the land, and enforce those laws. It still takes time. The U.S. has not completely resolved the conditions of insurgency related to our problem, but it gets better every day. I don't think Sri Lanka even understands what they need to do and why they need to do it. Celebrating their defeat of LTTE does not help in that regard.

My opinion, and it does stand up to historical challenge.

[Bill Moore]

I agree that extreme, violent groups must be dealt with, and often they must be dealt with harshly; but my point is that in so doing one must understand that the group they are dealing with exists because the conditions of insurgency exist and feeds upon those conditions and that the defeat of the insurgent group is a very different thing from the defeat of the conditions of insurgency

.

Hard to disagree with this statement, it is quite logical as far as it goes, but you didn't really respond to my questions above. A lot of insurgent groups are violent minorities (not necessarily talking ethnic group), so does the government really need to address their extreme views or defeat neutralize the group?

In some cases what you're arguing is very applicable (the Philippines and Sri Lanka both being good examples), but in other situations a minority with extreme views whipped into violent revolt by internal or external leadership is not a failure of government in my view.

Every situation is different, and in some cases it is more appropriate for the security forces to be the main effort to quell the problem, in other cases it will take more of a holistic approach that addresses legitimate grievances.

I think we're simply talking past one another, because my point isn't that the military is always or even normally the best approach to quelling an insurgency, but on the other hand I think we tend to downplay the importance of force intelligently applied. Where we may disagree is that I think security force pressure (again intelligently applied) on the armed insurgents is valuable, and something that I don't think we're doing as well as we could be in Afghanistan. I also am against re-writing history to force historical events conform to our views, so I always welcome your counter arguments. We're going to be doing this for many years, so if we can do it more effectively I'm all for it.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

Nah, we're just forcing each other to clarify their points. I suspect it is helpful for others who are watching us lock horns.

Evil or selfish men will step up to lead insurgencies when the conditions exist and the same goes for governments and now, non-state actors like AQ, who will swoop in to conduct UW for their own purposes as well.

Poor governance opens the door for change...what that change will be depends upon who steps up to the plate.