![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumRecent reading (The Interrogators, by Chris Mackey... that will be a different post) had me pondering terror, as a tactic, and a question by antiquated_tory makes my thoughts on it more relevant.
What makes terrorism terrorism. This was addressed by some question and answer in my post about the mail with the device to make it ignite on opening (a whole new meaning to "flame wars").
And what of groups like the IRA?
Is there an acceptable use for terror?
Maybe.
When Michael Collins (to use the IRA as an example, because it's a subject near and dear to my Irish descended heart) was attacking the British he was using a form of terror. What the guerrillas in Spain did against the French when Napoleon invaded. It was more targeted than they were, but it was still aimed at those who were directly involved in the ruling of British Ireland.
As such, while unconventional, it was still war, and I could; had I been alive, have supported them with a clear conscience.
These days the Provos are in another kind of fight, one which is indiscriminate, and doesn't have such clear aims. They want the British out of N. Ireland, but they aren't trying to make a direct fight with the people running the show. In fact they don't always target those in N. Ireland (which isn't really required, they could make members of Parliament, who support the continuation of the status quo targets of assasination... I don't think I'd approve, but it would be a more legitimate fight... more akin to a war).
I'm a soldier, in the right context I am a legal target for some pretty indiscriminate lethal force (a 122mm rocket is not what anyone would call a precision weapon... neither is a hand grenade, it's just a matter of scale). If the Provos were attacking just soldiers, and administrators, and the government which supports and pays for it... it would be (in my mind) a form of legitimate struggle (none of this means I think such a thing is a good idea. The 80ish years since the founding of an independent south have changed the equation, as have the tactics of the Provos).
Which, I guess, defines what I mean by terrorism. I, as a soldier, have explicitly accepted that there are situations where killing people to gain my ends are acceptable. Some of those means are terrible, but those are the rules of the game.
Groups who try to sway an entire people without accepting a concomitant risk (and suicide as a tactic doesn't count... unless the target is of a military nature), people whose specific targets are the non-players (civilians in a war are different, one of the reasons I disagree with calling the struggle with bin Laden, et alia a war), that's terrorism.
And it's a thing to be eradicated, at its root if possible, but by its branches when they bear their bitter fruit.
antiquated_tory makes my thoughts on it more relevant.What makes terrorism terrorism. This was addressed by some question and answer in my post about the mail with the device to make it ignite on opening (a whole new meaning to "flame wars").
And what of groups like the IRA?
Is there an acceptable use for terror?
Maybe.
When Michael Collins (to use the IRA as an example, because it's a subject near and dear to my Irish descended heart) was attacking the British he was using a form of terror. What the guerrillas in Spain did against the French when Napoleon invaded. It was more targeted than they were, but it was still aimed at those who were directly involved in the ruling of British Ireland.
As such, while unconventional, it was still war, and I could; had I been alive, have supported them with a clear conscience.
These days the Provos are in another kind of fight, one which is indiscriminate, and doesn't have such clear aims. They want the British out of N. Ireland, but they aren't trying to make a direct fight with the people running the show. In fact they don't always target those in N. Ireland (which isn't really required, they could make members of Parliament, who support the continuation of the status quo targets of assasination... I don't think I'd approve, but it would be a more legitimate fight... more akin to a war).
I'm a soldier, in the right context I am a legal target for some pretty indiscriminate lethal force (a 122mm rocket is not what anyone would call a precision weapon... neither is a hand grenade, it's just a matter of scale). If the Provos were attacking just soldiers, and administrators, and the government which supports and pays for it... it would be (in my mind) a form of legitimate struggle (none of this means I think such a thing is a good idea. The 80ish years since the founding of an independent south have changed the equation, as have the tactics of the Provos).
Which, I guess, defines what I mean by terrorism. I, as a soldier, have explicitly accepted that there are situations where killing people to gain my ends are acceptable. Some of those means are terrible, but those are the rules of the game.
Groups who try to sway an entire people without accepting a concomitant risk (and suicide as a tactic doesn't count... unless the target is of a military nature), people whose specific targets are the non-players (civilians in a war are different, one of the reasons I disagree with calling the struggle with bin Laden, et alia a war), that's terrorism.
And it's a thing to be eradicated, at its root if possible, but by its branches when they bear their bitter fruit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:15 am (UTC)The soft gloves of humanity are long-since off on this one, and all those who aid and abet the coalition are valid targets. If people like Berg are the ones who find themselves attacked, it is primarily because they were soft targets. If Iraqi resistance use remotely detonated (and rather indiscriminate) IEDs instead of bullets, it is because the chance of surviving such an attack while accomplishing the goal is far higher.
I don't think that the resistance could really fight a war like you envision with such limited targets successfully. Keep in mind that Michael Collins' brilliantly executed attacks against those British who were in charge of the Irish occupation only could occur because the British were foolish enough to let the opposition work directly in their midst without adequate vetting. They knew these people's home addresses, and were thoroughly a part of their system, largely because the Irish resistance has always been a struggle between pro-republican and pro-British Irish, backed by the British government. It's a lot easier to infiltrate that kind of structure.
Iraqis, however, could not achieve the kinds of successes that were seen with Michael Collins. Even wannnabe modern Irish revolutionaries couldn't do this, because the same high-level targets of opportunity just aren't easily touchable anymore.
The heart and soul of *ANY* resistance effort that allows it to function is that individual, local cells need something local they can do which will feel like they're accomplishing a goal. These goals must, by definition, be local and simple, because there are incredible vulnerabilities to any plan that requires trusting larger circles of people, that requires transportation, that requires communication between resistance cells, etc.
Sometimes, local and simple means killing a local shopkeeper who has been keeping the opposition informed of your actions, or otherwise cowing the locals from opposing you. (Certainly, the French resistance to the Germans did this routinely.) Sometimes it means targeting the police, or planting bombs that may kill civilians too.
Not enough is done to point out how much more effective the methods are nowadays for occupying forces to infiltrate insurrectionist's organizations. If the equation of resistance is going to work, acts of resistance must be locally based, at least to start. Attacks can become more brazen later, once weaknesses of the enemy have become more obvious, and once relatively "safe", trusted lines of inter-organizational communication have been established.
Resistance is a very tough learning game. Not many will go on to "the next level" where attacks get more organized and more of a direct threat to the occupation...but in order for it to be possible at all, soft targets need to be exploited first.