Comments on The Pensive Quill: O’Toole Versus Dunphy

O'Toole Versus Dunphy Frank ‘For example, wer...

2011-10-15T06:20:44.063+01:00

O'Toole Versus Dunphy
Frank
‘For example, were they aware of the 'framework' provided by Britain and therefore think that almost no matter what they did it would not get too out of hand? Or did they feel at the time that it could spiral out of control and therefore make conscious strategic, or moral, decisions to hold back? Did they essentially shape the nature of the war fought. Or did they go blindly forward and become shaped by it?
It is one of those moot points that will never be sorted unless people talk about the nature of thinking that was there at the time. I don’t think we can infer as much as we would need to from external sources. Was the republican war, for example, a limited negotiating war? In the latter stages I think that argument can be made. Then we would need to know how long and how deep the contacts with MI6 were. That would suggest a limited war mentality. There is a big study there for anyone willing to take up the challenge.

There is no doubt Britain was partial and not a ne...

2011-10-12T17:58:06.914+01:00

There is no doubt Britain was partial and not a neutral observer, although it wore that mantle very effectively for propaganda purposes. But had Britain not been able to, or for whatever reason, not wanted to limit the extent of the troubles, would the conflict have been self-limiting, to use a clumsy phrase? Or would it have escalated until other darker limits were reached? It comes back to the nature of war and the concept of it held by those involved. For example, were they aware of the ‘framework’ provided by Britain and therefore think that almost no matter what they did it would not get too out of hand? Or did they feel at the time that it could spiral out of control and therefore make conscious strategic, or moral, decisions to hold back? Did they essentially shape the nature of the war fought. Or did they go blindly forward and become shaped by it?

O'Toole Versus Dunphy Frank, Britain’s relat...

2011-10-12T09:02:37.406+01:00

O'Toole Versus Dunphy

Frank,

Britain’s relationship with the North is complicated. There is the argument that the cause of much of the problem was not its desire to get involved but its calculated self interest of holding back. The strength of the British state on the ground made Srebrenica scale atrocities a most unlikely outcome. The North was part of the West and there were too many eyes on it. Yet one of the biggest atrocities committed in Ireland was by the British state. It was player in the conflict and not a mere observer. It had other ways of maintaining control. Also those who perpetrated Srebrenica were part of a state power in control of territory and administration. What happened in the North was small localised warfare.

That will remain an unanswerable question along wi...

2011-10-11T22:36:07.225+01:00

That will remain an unanswerable question along with so many other "what if's?" regarding periods of mankind's past.

Of course there are differing opinions regarding the answer but even a consensus mightn't point to the truth.

I’ve often wondered why the troubles stopped where...

2011-10-10T22:21:44.657+01:00

I’ve often wondered why the troubles stopped where it did in terms of ‘war crimes’. Yes there were atrocities like the Omagh bombing… but the whole male population of one tribe or the other, in Omagh for example, wasn’t rounded up and massacred as in Srebrenica. Why? Did those fighting the war make moral judgements not to escalate to that point or did British money and power keep a lid on it until they could resolve it to their benefit? In other words had the British been weaker would the conflict have inevitably escalated into something more severe?

Simon, it is a very difficult issue and there are...

2011-10-04T21:06:25.330+01:00

Simon,

it is a very difficult issue and there are no easy answers. I don't find your comments deliberately ambiguous, rather an attempt to work your way through this. Much like the rest of us who don't have the answers but who are trying to a better understanding

Anthony- "regardless of the ends there are ac...

2011-10-04T21:00:17.875+01:00

Anthony- "regardless of the ends there are acts which can be regarded as war crimes against which people have rights that should not be violated regardless of the ends."

I agree with this and it was the point I was trying to make but I understand some of my comments might be construed as ambiguous. I think you are perceptive enough to spot "reluctance", or something akin to it, when you see it.

Simon, it strikes me that you are still striving ...

2011-10-04T20:02:35.948+01:00

Simon,

it strikes me that you are still striving to present a case that we should behave in a certain way because it is more likely to achieve a certain objective, in this case reconciliation. What I am looking at is somewhat different. While not taking away from the validity of what you say as there is a lot of logic in it, is there not a standalone issue which can be separated from ends? That is regardless of the ends there are acts which can be regarded as war crimes against which people have rights that should not be violated regardless of the ends. A good end does not validate a bad means. In this sense the old liberal adage that process justifies outcome has much to be said for it.

‘That would be crass, an absurdity which only the most unintelligent or corrupt would favour.’

Yet as Frank White points out in another post, there is a view that at the heart of war anything goes. And it is often the intelligent and incorruptible that drive it.

Anthony, I think certain behaviours should always...

2011-10-04T19:44:45.096+01:00

Anthony,

I think certain behaviours should always be avoided particularly if used to 'terrorise' people. What I mean by that is if they go outside the usual rules of combat or target non-combatants.

If you use sexual violence or mutilation, for example, to punish a group of people you leave a precedent, a distasteful legacy and a lot of hatred- more so than if the same level of violence was used but of a less malevolent variety.

Human Rights are an important aspect of ethical behaviour and in war if we can minimise war crimes the easier reconciliation will be because of the qualitative difference in violence. I suppose this tends to depend also on cultural differences but if civilians become the intended victim or if sexual or mutilitating violence is used on the other force the opposition's hearts and minds will be more difficult to win.

As for funding a campaign on drugs I think you are right in saying the only point in winning would be winning. That would be crass, an absurdity which only the most unintelligent or corrupt would favour.

Marty, I doubt very much if an official Truth Com...

2011-10-04T08:44:45.223+01:00

Marty,

I doubt very much if an official Truth Commission that relies on the testimony of those involved will achieve very much. About six years ago I suggested on Radio Ulster that journalists should perhaps work on the past and be given more access to sources from all sides. What they come up with would not be definitive but better than what we have. They could be backed by historians and researchers.

I doubt if the people you mentioned will ever come clean. Truth as a recovery process will emerge in bits and pieces. I imagine it will be like an archaeological dig, a bone here, a fossil there, all which when pieced together give us a better feel. Rather than it ever producing a full elephant what we will get is the description of an elephant a blind man would give if he were to feel it with his hands (Puchala's anology). It will always remain opaque.

Simon,

‘As to war crimes if Republicans did collectively punish civilians, carry out sexual offences to punish people whether civilian or military or enslave people they wouldn't deserve to win.’

It could be rephrased as what would be the point in them winning other than winning?

‘Whether it is not committing war crimes or just having some sort of
restraint the moral high ground has to be taken to ensure legitimacy. If you don't have legitimacy you will not have support.

I wonder where this takes us as it seems to imply that behaving ethically is a means to an end which could just as easily be displaced by another means. This is underscored by the suggestion that ethical behaviour is to be valued because it gains legitimacy. This begs the question if unethical behaviour achieved legitimacy would it be okay to use it? To the Hutu Power movement and its many supporters the most unethical behaviour was legitimised and supported. Unlike the Nazi atrocities, moist of which were carried out in other countries and out of sight of the Nazi support base in Germany, the slaughter in Rwanda was carried out in streets, schools, hospitals, churches and other public places in Rwanda.

Simon 'The ends do not justify the means part...

2011-09-26T23:15:59.361+01:00

Simon

'The ends do not justify the means particularly if the ends are sullied or ruined beyond recognition by those means'.

like SF strategy?

I don't think Republicans should have shown le...

2011-09-26T21:10:42.157+01:00

I don't think Republicans should have shown less restraint.

For example, giving warnings before civilians are going to killed may not be the de riguer military technique but attacking civilians doesn't mean you are going to win.

As to war crimes if Republicans did collectively punish civilians, carry out sexual offences to punish people whether civilian or military or enslave people they wouldn't deserve to win.

I know there are documented cases of sexual abuse by the security services on suspects. (eg. in the book State Violence by Raymond Murray) and Loyalists purposely collectively targeting civilians on an on-going basis but just because one side does it doesn't mean the other should.

As to other inhumane treatment which was carried out it was unacceptable also but thankfully it wasn't worse.

One question: If selling heroin to your own people or others meant you made enough money to fund a successful war would it be worth it? The answer would be no.

Whether it is not committing war crimes or just having some sort of restraint the moral high ground has to be taken to ensure legitimacy. If you don't have legitimacy you will not have support. The ends do not justify the means particularly if the ends are sullied or ruined beyond recognition by those means.

yeah what army ever won a war by giving warnings b...

2011-09-26T04:49:56.040+01:00

yeah what army ever won a war by giving warnings before they attacked?????

might there be an argument if the IRA had been mor...

2011-09-24T21:45:11.667+01:00

might there be an argument if the IRA had been more atrocious they may have won? like the jews in palestine, the yanks in japan?

Frank, ‘The problem with the Camus statement is t...

2011-09-24T19:52:03.100+01:00

Frank,

‘The problem with the Camus statement is that destruction is such a powerful amoral force it is extremely difficult to control or guide in any ‘right way’.’

But where it can be controlled it should be. The IRA for example did not rape the women of the unionist community to undermine their morale and constantly their will to be aligned to the British state. Civilians were not targeted frequently, bomb warnings were for the most part given. Even if the leadership were not doing this out of moral conviction it had to take account of the moral considerations of others which acted as a constraint on its freedom to act.

‘the British managed to largely keep fingers off triggers and avoid further major atrocities.’

Arguably that was when the British helped kill more people – via its permitting of arms to loyalists.
That said, I think there is a serious reluctance on the part of republicans to accept that the IRA committed atrocities.

Mick, ‘but aping the powers that be is not one of...

2011-09-24T19:41:25.652+01:00

Mick,

‘but aping the powers that be is not one of them.’
Again we must disagree. I see a thread throughout your logic which mimics those powers that be. You are not being asked to cheer on the war crimes tribunals any more than you are being asked to cheer on the domestic British courts that convicted the killers of Milly Dowling or the killers of Baby P. And the same logic you use applies in both cases – they help mask and subsequently legitimise an unjust property.

Is it better that Bagosora was jailed or set free. Were the actions for which he was convicted war crimes or crimes against humanity?

‘ war crimes tribunals ... are also designed to deceive people there is something honourable about war, that it is governed by a civilised code of behaviour which they 'the good guys' never overstep.

Is there a code in war that should not be violated? Was the Soviet resistance to Nazi Germany not an honourable war that may have involved many dishonourable practices? Or would it have been more honourable to refuse to fight?

‘This is especially dangerous in today's world when capital is once again degenerating into the way it used its military might in the 19th and early 20th century to gain advantage over its competitor nations and those who have resources it coverts.’

‘To suggest morals come into the decision making process in war is pure fantasy as the examples given of Curtis le May and Robert McNamara highlight.’

Were it not for the moral argument being applied by the Left and the Human Rights lobby Afghanistan might have been nuked in 2001 and the casualty rate in Iraq would have been much higher. Because the people who wage war often have no moral considerations, they have to be constrained where possible by the moral constraints of others.

‘Trotsky was a lot of things, but a hypocrite?’

Along with Lenin and is spite of his own dictum borrowed from Luxemburg he introduced the very measures which ensured the defeat of socialism – the dictatorship of the party over the proletariat at the expense of the dictatorship of the proletariat which was meant to be universal suffrage. And his abysmal failure to confront Stalin when it matters leaves a lot to be desired on the part of someone unwilling to practice what he preached.

‘he would not be lectured on morals by the political representatives of the great powers who were responsible for starting a totally unnecessary war (WW1) which sent Europe's young men into a meat grinder.’

Which is fine. Nor should any of us. That however does not preclude a robust defence of the right of people not to be subject to war crimes.

capitalism doesn't have friends, it has intere...

2011-09-24T14:02:24.078+01:00

capitalism doesn't have friends, it has interests.

war tribunals or truth commissions are bunkum. all show and bluster. like tribunals at the Dail, outcome decided in advance of TDs paying themselves to investigate themselves. Democracy and freedom at work.

no wonder ive degenerated into an 'i dont give a fuk' cynic.
cant wait to fly out...bring it on.

"But your argument tends towards copying them...

2011-09-24T11:49:41.759+01:00

"But your argument tends towards copying them."

AM

Rubbish! Like millions of others I spend far to much of my time attempting to be a tiny cog in the struggle to build a more equitable world, whilst at times we may be banging our heads on a closed door, and we undoubtedly have made many mistakes, but aping the powers that be is not one of them.

What I will not do is cheer on so called war crimes tribunals which in there current form are little more than winner takes all justice. In some ways they are even worse than this, as they are also designed to deceive people there is something honourable about war, that it is governed by a civilised code of behaviour which they 'the good guys' never overstep.

This is especially dangerous in today's world when capital is once again degenerating into the way it used its military might in the 19th and early 20th century to gain advantage over its competitor nations and those who have resources it coverts.

To suggest morals come into the decision making process in war is pure fantasy as the examples given of Curtis le May and Robert McNamara highlight. (Not suggesting you said this)

Trotsky was a lot of things, but a hypocrite? Certainly no more than the average person. One of his main points in the book I mentioned, if I remember correctly and it was many years since I read the booklet, was he would not be lectured on morals by the political representatives of the great powers who were responsible for starting a totally unnecessary war (WW1) which sent Europe's young men into a meat grinder.

I,m of the opinion that we should dump the preside...

2011-09-24T09:07:15.644+01:00

I,m of the opinion that we should dump the president post after all we have the queen now ,she has her toe in the door and I heard that at the garden of remembrance she said "hello boys I.m back"

AH I,m getting the hang of this moral thing now, i...

2011-09-24T09:00:55.206+01:00

AH I,m getting the hang of this moral thing now, its soooo simple ,might is right as long as you win is that it.

…Camus when he said that even in destruction there...

2011-09-24T07:47:02.135+01:00

…Camus when he said that even in destruction there's a right way and a wrong way
The problem with the Camus statement is that destruction is such a powerful amoral force it is extremely difficult to control or guide in any ‘right way’. It’s maybe one of the reasons the IRA lost the war in the early years of the troubles. The IRA was at its strongest when Britain was in poor control of its destructive urges, eg after Bloody Sunday. But while the British managed to largely keep fingers off triggers and avoid further major atrocities, IRA fighters were young, emotional and idealistic and action became more important than the goal. The IRA had a weak leadership and the ‘controlling mind’ effectively became the young volunteers who collectively rushed to destroy, committed atrocities and then tried to post rationalise the mayhem into a strategy, losing the propaganda war (which represented the IRA’s only chance of success) in the process.

free state political education movie coming on TG4...

2011-09-23T21:26:11.054+01:00

free state political education movie coming on TG4 'a few dollars more'.

Frank, overall a case of whose ox is gored I thin...

2011-09-23T21:20:51.030+01:00

Frank,

overall a case of whose ox is gored I think. Nothing specifically Irish or English about it.

AM - ‘What I find difficult is the double standard...

2011-09-23T21:12:42.875+01:00

AM - ‘What I find difficult is the double standard.’
Too right, the brass neck…
Maybe it’s an Irish thing? I read once that an English traveller remarked with interest and surprise that medieval Irish people prized fairness in Brehonic law, even when it went against them. I’d argue the English see it the opposite way, they make sure they win and then bend the argument to make them look right. But maybe that’s just my prejudices talking…

michaelhenry im loving it already. the presidentia...

2011-09-23T21:08:09.647+01:00

michaelhenry
im loving it already. the presidential race was a dead duck until SF/marty entered. now its rivetting.

yes the political clique in the south are watching their cushy numbers and quango's and enquiries into themselves.