the IRA - a terrorism success story

The IRA has put all of its weapons beyond use, the head of the arms decommissioning body has said.  General John de Chastelain made the announcement at a news conference accompanied by the two churchmen who witnessed the process.

"We are satisfied that the arms decommissioned represent the totality of the IRA's arsenal."

Welcoming the move, Prime Minister Tony Blair said IRA decommissioning had been "finally accomplished".

The general said: "We have observed and verified events to put beyond use very large quantities of arms which we believe include all the arms in the IRA's possession.

So, here is something I have been harping on since 9/11.  The first reaction of every elected official, dem and Rethug, at every level, was 'how do we get back at them - how do best we fight terrorism?

Not one of them actualy asked the question: why did Al Qaida attack us - what did we do that makes them want to attack us?

Our questionable history in the middle East - from ousting a democratically elected leader in Iran 50 years ago, to supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran in their war in the 80's, supporting the Mujahadin in Afganistan, occupying Saudia Arabia during the Gulf War to our ever present and rarely questioned unflappable support for Israel, no matter how militant their actions against a repressed and occupied nation, and now this disatrous current war in Iraq, have all added fuel to the fire.  

Am I nuts to think that maybe we should question the entire direction of our foreign policy in the Middle East, and to the Islamic world in general, to see if there is a way to get us out of this spiral of violence, and find a way to live cooperatively with our Islamic neighbors?

People said it could never happen in Ireland.

•  i've been saying this since long before 9/11

  the way to undercut terrorism is to provide enough of a political route for addressing grievances that you divide the real nihilists from those who can be reasoned with. then it's much easier to bring the gangster militants to justice. that's feingold's take on iraq as well FWIW.

  by wu ming on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:43:50 AM PDT

•  It's something of a paradox.

  If we respond to 9/11, solely by changing policy and say withdrawing from the Arabian pennisula, we send a signal to Pavlov's dog that an attack on the US will help you get what you want.

  If we respond to 9/11, solely by military action, we send a signal that we're arrogant assholes.

  The key, then is to do both.  I don't know if Teddy meant this when he said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"... but the key is to change the policy in a soft manner.  Don't admit it, don't publicize it, just change it.  And in the meantime kick the shit out of those who attack us.

  The point of the military action is to make a point that you pay a price for attacking us, that we won't be intimidated.  The point of the policey change is to set up the ground such that people won't have a desire to attack us in the future.

  This takes talent.  I don't know if Bush is doing this approach, but it certainly appears like he is relying solely upon the military and I see nothing to suggest policy change outside of that.  Even if he is, his indiscriminate attacks against not just those who committed 9/11, but those we just don't like has damaged whatever credit we might have obtained through policy change.

  So I don't think you are nuts to question our policy.

  by Steve4Clark on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:44:25 AM PDT

  •  Rabin

    Rabin used to say, talk peace like there is no terrorism and fight terrorism like there are no peace talks.

    by UpstateNYDem on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:58:10 AM PDT

    •  good words

      I think that's probably a good way to put it.

      The two are connected, yet at the same time cannot be.

      by Steve4Clark on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

•  the IRA

  had political objectives that could at least theoretically have been negotiated. AQ does not. They aren't even a group as much as an ideology.

  Especially given the upcoming Palestinian legislative elections, it is far more likely that a group like Hamas will one day follow the path of the IRA than a group attacking America or the west in general.

  by thirdparty on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:01:08 PM PDT

•  Recommended

  I recommended this diary, if only because I think the topic is extremely important in light of Democrats need to construct a policy alternative to fighting terrorism that doesn't come across like running away with our tail between our legs.

  20 years ago, very, very, very few people would ever have thought the Northern Ireland situation could be resolved.  Protestant vs. Catholic emnity and violence was ingrained in their culture, the two sides were at it so long that they never were going to resolve it and any effort was just a waste of time.  (Sound familiar?  Israel/Palestine anyone?)

  Yet change did occur, slowly. The biggest breakthrough being the Good Friday accords which while not completely succesful, seems to have raised in retrospect enough sense of hope and breathing room to reach the point we are today: the IRA has decommssioned its arms.  20 years from now, when Northern Ireland is as robust as the Republic of Ireland has become, when Belfast is celebrating the opening of Bono's newest hip hotel, we'll be wondering how it ever was.

  Speak softly, big stick.  Works for me.

  BTW, that wily old general Sharon might just have the last laugh, now that the terrorist Arafat is finally dead.  He is certainly no Rabin, G*d rest his soul, but he's better than his critics on the international left (and the Israeli right) say.  Israel has withdrawn from Gaza.  Withdrawal from the West Bank next is inevitable.  Which would just leave the sole issue of Jerusalem. (I would hope this is Sharon's plan - phase the withdrawal in discrete chunks digestible by both sides, with resting periods between each phase.)

  Yet no one doubts that Sharon would strike back with ruthless military force if the Palestinian terrorists like Hamas keep up with the suicide bombing.  Hamas has just recently called off the missle attacks.  A wall has been erected, yes, but sometimes fences make good neighbors, especially if you can't stand your neighbor.  Eventually, new neighbors move in and the fence comes down.  Peace.  With security.  Is possible.

  by goblue72 on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:16:02 PM PDT

•  "Al Qaeda "

  really doesn't have an organization like Hamas or the IRA. There are no leaders or communiques which are sent from a central HQ. It has no generals or commanders or "cells" or anything like that. Bin Ladin doesn't even have any actual "power" in the sense that he is an operational commander.
  In reality, "Al Qaeda" is a myth created largely by the western media. It's just shorthand for "Islamic terrorists".

  by sean oliver on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:18:54 PM PDT

  •  Hmm...

    Not sure where you got that idea.

    Al Qaeda is a terrorism franchising outfit.  That is, they're loosely organized and primarily operate by recruiting diseffected groups and offering terrorism training and manuals.

    So I would agree that bin Laden has no actual power, but I disagree with the myth concept.

    by Steve4Clark on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 01:52:56 PM PDT

    •  They aren't

      an "outfit". There's no such organization known to its supposed members as "Al Qaeda" that actually exists except in the mouths of politicians and the media. No, "they" don't train anybody, nor do they recruit anyone.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

      "Al Qaeda" was in reality a legal definition made up by FBI/US prosecuters during the 1998 Embassy bombing trial. In order to get a "conspiracy"-type conviction, they had to prove there was some kind of organization. One of the statements by the jihadists said something about "a base" or "movement" translated from the Arabic term "al qaeda" which was picked up by the prosecuters and subsequently by the US media as a sort of shorthand for a disparate group of Islamist Militant groups primarily based in Afghanistan. By 9/11 the term stuck, despite the fact it really doesn't mean anything.

       http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm

      But the group itself does not exist. They don't "do" anything because they aren't an organization.
      When people talk of "Al Qaeda" they refer to a collection of small terrorist groups around the world who don't consistently communicate with each other or trade information but who do have the same approximate goals.

      The closest thing to any kind of organization are probably the funding sources of terrorism - madrassas, Islamic charities, Islamic nationalist groups, etc.

      See also Jason Burke's well-researched no-nonsense book:
      http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141019123/202-1193031-6309418

      by sean oliver on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 04:59:30 PM PDT

      •  I don't agree

        I think you're picking nits, actually.

        Yeah, they are a bit exagerrated, both by the West... and also by Bin Laden himself, as they tend to take credit for attacks they have nothing to do with just for the PR sake.

        That CSMonitor story corroborates with my understanding of the group based on what Clarke wrote in his book "Against All Enemies", as well as "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheur, the CIA agent chief charged with monitoring Al Qaeda.

        by Steve4Clark on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 07:07:57 PM PDT

•  If only the loyalists would follow suit...

  ...then there would be peace in Ireland.  Two weeks ago, loyalists engaged in the worst riots since 1996.  According to this article from BBC, Loyalists will not follow the IRA's latest move towards peace, and there has been no cessation of violence on their part, even though the IRA has remained on ceasefire since 1997.

  by CoolOnion on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:24:19 PM PDT

  •  divide and conquer

    the more the loyalists become divided off from the rest of the country - as the IRA disarms and continues its move from terrorism to democratic politics - the easier it is to isolate the loyalists and defeat them.

    by goblue72 on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:38:11 PM PDT

    •  The press needs to play a part, too

      For too long, the media has reported only one side of the struggle, ignoring loyalist violence against the Catholic residents of Northern Ireland and internecine feuds among the various loyalist paramilitary groups.  Hopefully, the media will now focus on the sectarian rants of Ian Paisley, and come up with some editorials against loyalist violence.

      by CoolOnion on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 01:36:57 PM PDT