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: 2010-06-20 01:57 am (UTC)Stepping out of bounds happens, in all armies.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 04:09 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 04:36 am (UTC)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.