More on, "The Troubles"
Jun. 18th, 2010 10:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThere 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-06-19 08:30 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 01:56 am (UTC)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.