More on, "The Troubles"

[pecunium]

There is a very good piece up in the Guardian right now, Paratrooper Apology

There is a lot of good stuff in there, most of it not related to Bloody Sunday, per se but to being a soldier.

Nevertheless, in quiet moments, we could all concede that something had gone very wrong. Whenever I asked soldiers who were there on that day what had really happened, the reply was always pretty much the same: "A couple of twats from Support Company lost the plot."

Thirty-eight years on, and £200m later, the official inquiry is finally over and has reached what amounts to the same conclusion. It also concludes that the soldiers of 1 Para lied and tried to cover up their actions. And again – there's no denying it anymore. They did. And if I'm honest, had I been present on that day, I would have also lied. It might be nice to imagine that in the name of truth and justice, I would have started pointing fingers, but I wouldn't have.

Because what sort of paratrooper would that have made me?

This is a really hard thing, and a big part of how such things get to be what they become; soldiers, more than anyone else I know, have a bond. Firefighters don't have it. Cops don't have it. Firefighters face an elemental force. It's lethal, but impartial. Cops, they do face people, but the job description isn't, "go kill people who are allowed to kill you back."

Soldiers do that. Death isn't incidental to our jobs, it's part and parcel. We know that, and we depend on our fellows to help us avoid it. There are a number of soldiers with whom I've served whom I don't like, some of whom I despised. There are only a handful I wouldn't trust with my life. That makes one protective of them, even when they screw up.

There is, however, a bit of his argument which goes awry.

At the forefront of the celebrations in Londonderry this week was the one-time IRA commander Martin McGuinness. If only the families of the Bloody Sunday dead were able to have said, "The British army wrongly killed our sons. But you, Martin, have wrongly killed sons too, and so also we want nothing to do with you." It might have made our admission of guilt easier.

So, we are sorry for Bloody Sunday and for the innocent lives that were taken on that day. And this we can say, even though we know that no one is ever going to set up an inquiry or give an apology to the 52 families of paratroopers who were murdered by the IRA.

He's wrong. The IRA doesn't need to apologise for the dead soldiers (not just the Paras). They were rebels. It's what rebels do. It's part of what soldiers are paid for; to be killed in the defense of the state (the US oath of enlistment says, "all enemies, foreign and domestic"). It sucks, but it goes with the territory.

Rebels get caught, they get punished (the traditional punishment is death). We praise rebels (The American Revolution was Rebels, so too were the Confederates [and no one can honestly say there aren't praises of them, both the high, and the low; The US has named a number of Army posts after them, Forts Jackson and Lee, as well as tanks {the Stuart} as official examples] the Jacobite rebels of the Rising of '45, and Culloden).

So the killing of soldiers isn't really something the IRA needs to apologise for. Certainly I don't think the families of those killed in Bogside need to take time to apologise for the actions of other people. That's a cruel thing to ask.

Did the IRA do bad things? Yep. Moving the campaign from soldiers/gov't officials to everyday people was moving from rebellion to terrorism. For that they are to be blamed for the rest of time. But for being rebels, and acting like rebels, for deciding (be it just or not) that these words applied,... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ?

Nope.

Those are potent words, they can (and have) led to a vast amount of evil deeds; but in them are precious kernels of truth. If redress of grievance is not available, and abuses are practiced, the response will come, and there is justification.

So, the questions become, did the Republicans have grievance? Was there a reasonable chance for redress?

If yes, to the first, and no to the second, then force is no longer out of bounds.

Which means the question is... did they use that force in a reasonable manner? Soldiers are legitimate targets of rebellions; insofar as they targeted soldiers, they were not out of bounds, and the soldiers have no claim to an apology.

Comments

[onyxlynx]

Yeah. It's probably old-fashioned of me.

[mangoman.livejournal.com]

Nice, well thought-out, and well-put.

The other thing I've been wondering is, whether Lt-Col Wilford is still alive. My guess is, he's not, and that's why he's so forthrightly condemned. There's now talk of some of the enlisted men who perjured themselves to the Widgery enquiry being prosecuted 30 years afterwards. To mind that would be a shame, if Wilford can't be brought to account.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

He is retired and lives in Belgium (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0617/1224272700458.html).

[mangoman.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I really hope he's prosecuted somehow, before any squaddies.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I am mixed. Some of the actions discussed in the report seem to be worthy of prosecution, and perhaps more culpable than the Lt.-Col Wilford.

They are different sorts of thing.

[mangoman.livejournal.com]

Maybe you've read it more closely than I have.

My impression was that none of the guys who pulled the triggers could be identified for certain for any homicide charges; and I tend to agree with you somewhat about the perjury before Widgery; and in any case it seems they've all been given immunity, which I don't necessarily disagree with. But Saville seems to be saying the root cause was Wilford's decision to go into the Bogside, which apparently was direct disobedience; and that his troops lost discipline, which is his responsibility before theirs, in my book. Whether there's any criminal charges that can be brought against him, I've no idea.

Despite Cameron's apology, which I thought was very good, I'm appalled to see that the new Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, is still banging on about Saville having been a waste of money. I was very moved by the reaction of the families of the people who were killed, whose main reaction it seems, is that justice has now been done, in that their loved ones are finally exonerated of any blame for their own deaths.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The question isn't if they are known... they are, but rather if the evidence is enough for the prosecutor to lay charges. There is one, from what I've read, for whom charges seem more than reasonable. I don't know how likely the success of a prosecution would be.

[prodigal.livejournal.com]

One of the grievances the Separatists had was the campaign of anti-Catholic terror being waged by Loyalist militias such as the Reverend Paisley's Ulster Protestant Action.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

You have the right of it, I think, as you so often do in this sphere. Yet I have to admire the U.K. Official who accepted Responsibility -- ultimately, any Government is responsible for all the actions of its minions (as per Truman's desk-sign slogan "The Buck Stops Here".

That the actual trigger-pullers be punished seems to me immaterial this long after the fact. That their human flaw be acknowledged and be the subject of Official Apology seems to be both appropriate and necessary.

[katallen.livejournal.com]

You know, far as I can see he doesn't ask for the families of those killed to apologise, he asks that they shun Martin McGuinness for his part in killing and maiming 'sons'. Quite definitely Martin McGuinness was responsible - ordered - the deaths of civilians. To vilify those who killed your relatives, while embracing a man responsible for killing other 'innocent' civilians (the inverted commas because some of those killed were killed for being criminals but surely also entitled to be judged by the legal system rather than common knowledge), whose politics you like, is a touch partisan. Perhaps you're right in linking the 'sons' as being soldiers; I read it as 'it'd be nice if you were even-handed in your condemnation of murders'. Likewise since the apology we're all talking about is the government one, and he says at the top that he feels that much responsibility lies with 'senior ranks' for sending them as peace-keepers, and the inquiry was a public (Government) one and he links apology and inquiry, I'm not sure he's talking about the IRA apologising either. In this your reading may be true, although he could simply have said 'we know the IRA will never give an apology'... but if Governments can apologise for the mistakes made under past Governments, maybe the Paras and the whole of the UK is due an apology for the political mess that we were dragged into? Maybe the British, Irish, and Northern Irish Governments owe all of us who had to live with terrorism an apology for not doing better.

[katallen.livejournal.com]

For the rest, the trouble with saying the IRA moved from targetting soldiers and government officials to civilian targets is missing that both unionist and nationalist organisations started out attacking each other. So civilians, all be it those designated enemy targets because of their religion or political affiliation, were among the first casualties. This seems as good a list as any, but I'll admit to simply googling and glancing -- http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/index.html and I'll add this one for the horrific website design :) http://www.victims.org.uk/eventsoftroubles.html

I understand the IRA were looking at first to economic targets and securing their own community, which for most of the period of the troubles also included 'knee-capping' and often effectively exiling those they considered criminals. Which is ironic considering the number of post office and bank robberies in Ireland they were responsible for (frex http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1351204/Sinn-Fein-call-for-IRA-mens-release.html). Another quick google provide me with this as a brief account of how the paramilitaries cowed their own communities. http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0305/Conroy/Conroy.html

As to the prospects for redress -- the NICRA protests, among others, resulted in a series of reforms on housing and the early sectarian violence led to most of NICRAs original demands being met. I believe it was Harold Wilson pressured Stormont into disbanding the B-specials, introducing a reformed voting system, and a planned restructure of the RUC. In 1969 or so.

Did the Republicans have grievances? Yes. Did they have reasonable chance of redress? Probably, yes, changes were already being made before the Provos started their campaign, but the chances diminished as the men of violence took over.

Did the PIRA perhaps take too much heart from early statements by the Irish that they wouldn't stand idly by with chaos in the north and believe that they could force reunification by creating that chaos? Does Sein Fein talk about the Irish diaspora as if the romanticised opinions of third generation Australians and Americans should trump those of actual Northern Irish citizens who have to live with the consequences? Should the words of a bunch of rebels interested in justifying their actions or the enlistment oath of a foreign military be applied to other countries and cultures as some kind of gold standard? And anyway, does a rebel's duty to overthrow an unjust government entitle him to kill, maim, and otherwise abrogate the inalienable rights of others to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness while absolving him of any burden of guilt for the harm done others in the observance of his personal political beliefs? (Yes, criminals cannot be expected to observe the same standards as non-crimnals, but I believe that in order to gain parole in both US and UK legal systems a criminal has to acknowledge his crime and demonstrate some degree of penitance as a first step to being readmitted to the community.)

Whatever, I don't expect or require the IRA to apologise, but it would be nice to think that one day Northern Ireland would be a community where it was possible for genuine regret to be expressed over all the deaths and injuries that happened because people weren't prepared to treat each other as they would wish to be treated themselves.

You say soldiers have no right to an apology - I agree, but I'm afraid I've never seen an apology as something one can have a right to... For me an apology is worthless if one demands it as of right, it is either offered freely by the person who has wronged you or it is meaningless words. The minute one demands an apology, and the apology is given as a result of such a request, then it's no longer of any great value as a token of remorse or regret. But I'm afraid I also don't believe that a soldier gives up his right to life simply by enlisting -- otherwise why have a Geneva convention at all? Nor do I think Government officials are default legitimate targets, although I'm not sure what you call officials... tax department employees? policemen? firemen? ambulance men? social workers? planning department clerks? In the UK quite large numbers of civilians are paid Government employees.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

There is too much to address in specific (mostly because I don't have a dog in the fight of how "right" the IRA happened to be in the matter. I wasn't living there).

As to the question of redress... none of us can answer it. Every revolt against a colonial power (and it may have started some 400 years ago, but that's what England/Britain was doing to Ireland) comes because the rebels feel they have no chance of real redress/reform. Look at Ghandi and the salt.

The questions jus in bella for rebellion are murky, and always have been. Look at the VC and the treatment of loyalist mayors/towns. Look at the tarring and feathering; the burning out and hounding of Crown Loyalists in the American Revolution (Dave Nachmaninoff has a great song about it). It's to borrow a term from Clausewitz the problem of schwerpunkt; the point of decision. The Army outnumbers, and is better trained than the rebels are likely to be (barring them being able to field an actual army). In force on force they lose.

Which means the cost to the gov't they wish to oust has to be something they aren't willing to pay (and historically the lives of soldiers have been cheap enough to make them thing the gov't is willing to spend).

Which brings us to the thing I really wanted to address: But I'm afraid I also don't believe that a soldier gives up his right to life simply by enlisting -- otherwise why have a Geneva convention at all?

Speaking as a soldier, you're wrong. We are expendable (much as we might like to think we won't spent pointlessly). The Geneva conventions are about how to kill us, not about the legitimacy of our being killed.

Killing is what we do. Put two armies against each other and the rules of the game say everyone is a fair target. Geneva (the conventions of 1948, and 1972) specifically recognise nationalist aspirations as being legitimate uses of force.

The questions (as above) then devolve into what justifies the desire to independence, and how does the separatist element go about seeking that separation.

But the soldier's job is death and mayhem, and the only fair expectation is the, "enemy" will pay in the same coin

[katallen.livejournal.com]

I always have to laugh when Americans talk about the Irish grievance going back 400 years... When did you colonise America again? :D

I'm sorry, but when you sound like a history as written by Sien Fein it's hard not to believe you've at least put a couple of quid on a dog. (And a vicious rabid beast you've picked) And when you talk about American rebels you seem to think I should believe what Americans believe about their forefathers. This is one of the world's current problems perhaps, only the Americans actually believe that the Americans are good guys. You see rebels with a just cause; I see rich men who didn't want to pay their taxes. (And sorry, I don't use songs as a source of information on historical events -- they're made to stir the blood not relate the boring greys -- I don't use movies either, and I generally try to find accounts from both sides.

Okay, so we skip all the bits about the IRA starting off murdering civilians for another little canter around rebels v government... the only difference being that since soldiers are cheap then there's a definite justification for terrorism. Rebels who win by violence get to pardon themselves. Problematically the IRA didn't win by violence -- one could at best say that the battle was a stalemate and the world and community of Northern Ireland changed just enough for negotiation to be forced on all sides. Which leaves us in the uncomfortable realm of unpleasant truths and resentments.

And I didn't say that a soldier wasn't expendable, clearly he is (and yet with the idea of not leaving a man behind...) -- still offering your life for a purpose is not the same as yielding ones right to life. You say the Geneva conventions are all about how to kill soldiers -- I'm now worried the US army doesn't go into the bits about not rounding prisoners up, putting them in a barn and tossing in hand grenades till all inside are dead. Not shooting them in cold blood when they try to escape. Not humilating prisoners. You know, the bits that say a soldier's life is yours to take while he's in a theatre of conflict and a threat but not so much when he's sat at home, in his y-fronts, reading his e-mail.

The trouble with saying a soldier is expendable and the rebel also expects to pay with his life is that where things went well in Northern Ireland the rebels had little or no chance of paying with their lives - indeed the 'shoot to kill' policy is another grievance of the rebels... who did not apparantly believe that it was a fair expectation that they should pay in the same coin. According to their own statements they considered themselves to be soldiers, in a war, but didn't expect to be held to any rules, legal or moral.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Um.... did you read about the part where I said the US rebels weren't lily pure? That they terrorised the loyalists?

I suppose my being limiting the serious grievance to the expansion of the Pale under the Tudors did limit the period of grievance, but since the actual attempt at suzerainity (because of Norman assimilation, and the reduction in area actually controlled by the English was behind walls in Meath and Kildare). Followed with Cromwell bringing in the Scots, etc. Then that United Irishmen being suppressed for asking that the Irish be given the vote (which was "United" because it was protestants and catholics)? Yes, there were large chunks of time when the crown was less aggressive, but it's not as if the overlordship was completely benign; there's a reason, after all, that Gaelic is a language struggling to survive, and that's no less shameful there, than it is here (i.e what we did to the Indians; making them learn English).

It's not that I've read Sinn Fein, it's that I've read history (no small part of it written in England).

It also, if you look at what I said before, doesn't matter if I think they had a grievance; legitimate or not, what matters is they thought they had one (and in that regard the "History, according to Sinn Fein is the relevant narrative, because it explains they why of what they were doing. It may be provably wrong, but that's the thing to do, show them how they are incorrect, not just discount it as propaganda. For whatever reason it's what they believe, and so is the cause they are fighting for).

The parts of Geneva about not rounding up prisoners, etc. are part and parcel of the "how to kill soldiers" part; they define some of the things one isn't allowed to do (I've read the Articles, every last one of them; because they defined my life for sixteen years as an interrogator, further part of my duties as an instructor [and NCO] was to teach, and inculcate them in my troops, not to mention look for violations). As to when a soldier is a target... in a conflict, there is no safe haven. In the battlefield, on leave at home, etc.. The only time he's not fair game is when he's hors de combat.

With the acceptance of "strategic bombing" and the like, there isn't really much standing to say that, just because a soldier isn't in the line (or the immediate rear) he's safe. We've legitimised the mass killing of civilians, after all.

The ROE (under which the British troops
As to the IRA having a complaint about the "shoot to kill policy", it depends on what the specific nature of the complaint was. If they were complaining about being considered fair game, they are wrong. If they were complaining of "if it looks like an IRA member, fire at will," then they did have (per Geneva) a legitimate beef. I've not read the policy, so I don't know.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I disagree... The last line is a lament that no one will apologise for for the dead soldiers, specifically the 52 dead of 1 Para.

Now, I don't think he intends to, but dead soldiers are the usual reason given as exculpation of the rampage (and not just this rampage, but things like My Lai, and the murders the US Marines committed in Haditha, and the killing in the mosque in Fallujah).

It's also a touch cruel to say... "Your sons were killed; now that we've apologised for what we did you ought to apoligise for what someone else did."

Nope. They, quite apart from everything else that went on, deserve that apology, and they deserve it no strings attached.

[katallen.livejournal.com]

I think you're conflating two laments, but then you're also again using American cultural reference points to illustrate a 'usual reason' where this man may only dimly have heard of any of the American military murders you mention. He's certainly not going to have had them in mind while writing these words. The more usual reason in this country for excusing murders committed by the military or police is 'split second decisions made under fire' and indeed revenge for dead soldiers is (or was prior to extensive contamination from the US) generally frowned upon as a stated motive. We expect better from our military. We are, however, very keen on holding Governments accountable for the deaths of soldiers - I don't know if you've followed any of the inquests or complaints from the families of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan but you'll find very little mention of holding the enemy to account or wanting to bomb people into the stone age and a great deal more about holding the Government responsible for following the Americans in there, not properly outfitting the troops, carelessness in writing to bereaved relatives etc etc.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Revenge for dead soldiers is frowned upon a a motive here to. As to issues of, "contamination", I could tell you stories about how squaddies treat prisoners, compared to how, as a rule, the US treats them. As to "not knowing about the cases I mentioned, if he doesn't know about My Lai, I am much surprised. Given the play Fallujah got (and the level of detailed discussion on the various aspects of Iraq I had with the squaddies I was with; though perhaps they had a more vested interest in keeping up) I'd find it a little hard to believe he was completely unaware; but, if you prefer British Examples, there is the accusation that a Col of yours (whom I quoted for his speech to his troops before the invasion) was accused of, IIRC, improper killings (IIRC, don't have the details ready to hand... I've been distracted railing against torture).

Stepping out of bounds happens, in all armies.

[katallen.livejournal.com]

Just because you maybe read it that way, and I'd not want to leave it misunderstandable - by 'prior to extensive US contamination' I meant the probable effect of TV shows etc on people younger than myself. I'm sure that shows like 24 and Dexter (where killing and torturing people who are deemed not to be innocent, by the hero, is shown as heroic) have a corrosive effect on what is considered acceptable honourable behaviour. I was after all, talking about cultural referents and how a piece by a Brit intended for Brits might be more about British sentiment and subtext than American.

I'm sure you have a million stories of the bad behaviour of squaddies and British atrocities. But I did say that we expect better *stated excuses/motives* than revenge for dead comrades when a soldier commits murder... That I used the word 'murders' kind of illustrates that I know squaddies and policemen do bad things sometimes and that I don't consider those bad things to be anything short of murder. Though perhaps I should consider every death a soldier causes to be a murder... but doesn't that devalue the ones which are at some point deemed inexcusable versus the ones where, say, the other guy is firing into a crowd of civilians?

The American rebels also executed British prisoners of war... but you still seem to think their manifesto should have meaning outside your culture and your origin myths. And you can quote as much of the history of Ireland at me as you like - my amusement is always how the 'English' are supposed to leave Ireland and somehow atone for what they've 'done' when I'm pretty sure the 'English' would find it difficult to leave America - and they've been there half as long.

I am amazed that you read any history of The Troubles without encountering the debate over 'shoot to kill'. But I think, given the response of your fellow citizens to that guy who ran around a military camp shooting people, most people don't believe a soldier is fair game anywhere he may be (and since the emphasis seems to have been proving him an enemy soldier rather than a local crazy that they believe it wrong when done by a rebel/terrorist). Still I am reluctant to press that any further, because you're telling me you believe you have given up your right not to be murdered, and for your friends and relatives to believe that your killer should feel remorse at some point - even after the conflict ends. Which troubles me.

(And yes, I deliberately didn't check any details about 'that guy' - I follow the news, I have American friends including one local to 'that guy' - but it isn't really a part of my culture or life. In a few years I'll maybe remember the incident if I have reason to -- but I'm not going to think about it, and certainly not when I'm talking to Brits. Same as I'll talk to them about Hungerford and Dunblaine... because the only mass US shooting that leaps to mind is Columbine - it's one of my favourite flowers. Mostly people have to have a reason to remember, most Brits have no reason to remember My Lai - we didn't have a dog in the ring)

Anyhow, I've said my piece to try and correct what I think is a misunderstanding about 'contamination' (if the idea that American TV may have an impact on British culture offends, I'm sorry) -- and got royally distracted into the rest, which I shouldn't have. Thank you for letting me have my two penn'orth.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Ok, in that light I can see what you mean about contamination.

I didn't say the English should leave Ireland, and never have... heck I was pointing out how interesting (and by connotation, hopeful) it is the families of the dead are looking to the British courts to find justice. I find it somewhat amusing that so many British assume any statement about context = blanket support for a unified Ireland. I don't think it's going to happen, certainly not in my lifetime, and if it does, even after I'm dead, that's because there have been some huge changes in the way things in both countries are done.

I don't think, actually, given the present conditions, it's a good idea; for a slew of reasons having to do with two separate ways of doing business for the past 70 odd years. But you didn't ask about any of that; you sort of accused me of being an IRA supporter, and apologist; never mind that I've been pointing out that there has been general whitewash of the various ills the IRA have committed; and that no small part of that made the troubles worse, because overly romantic Americans wanted to "help".

The behavior I was referring to, by the by, wasn't murders, and other gross atrocities, but really casual violence. We never got a prisoner who had been captured by the British who hadn't been beaten black and blue. It's not condemned, it's sort of taken for granted.

I don't think there is any way to explain why I don't think someone who kills me, as part of a war (even if that war is a civil war, simmering low), can be expected to feel remorse, in a general sense, any more than I expect someone who killed a German in either of the World Wars, to feel remorse over it. It's a different set of rules (and that's quite apart from being a different set of laws), but I am not speaking for "most people" I am speaking for, and of, soldiers.

Most people have not the least idea what it's like to be one, nor how different the mindset is. I have more in common with the Iraqi soldiers I was working to kill (and who were doing the same in regard to me) than I do with most civilians. One of the strange things about being a soldier is that every other soldier, be the amity between our countries ever so strong, might be required to try and kill me next week.

And we know it, we accept it, and it doesn't change a thing; oddly it makes us, even when we are in strained relations (or actually shooting at each other) very sympathetic to our lot, which is to kill, and be killed.

It's hard, and cruel, and ugly, but it is what it is.