In response to Ezra’s post I’d like to bring up the notion of comparisons. The war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism in general have been heralded as “new kinds of warfare” by persons mainly on the Right. As for most things however, there are historical examples that are quite applicable to the current fighting.
A few weeks ago the IRA officially agreed to end its reliance on violence and agreed to attempt to make changes through political means. Although it has somewhat been forgotten, the violence that occurred in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 80s was very destructive and deadly. This was a constant problem for the British government for ten or fifteen years and one that commanded the use of several thousand British troops. It has been estimated however the size of the IRA forces was never higher then a few hundreds people. And yet this few hundred people managed to require the attention of several thousand British troops and untold amounts of funding.
This provides a window into what we are seeing in Iraq right now. It is difficult to estimate the strength of the insurgency there, but it is obviously enough to keep 130,000 U.S. troops occupied. Even though the recent attitude changes by the IRA might bring along some hope, keep in mind that in fighting the British the IRA were fighting their neighbors and in some sense their fellow countrymen. It is much easier to convince yourself that violence isn’t the answer when you are not fighting an invading country. In this sense, the wars in Vietnam or Korea provide a better comparison, but perhaps not the traditional one.
In these wars and to some degree the conflict with the IRA, the enemy forces did not have any objection other then to get the foreign forces out of their country, and were willing to fight as long as it took to accomplish that goal. This is a major problem with Bush’s strategy their. The Iraq fighters are never going to stop fighting-probably not even after the U.S. leaves. I would go as far to say that any kind of IRA-type agreement is highly unlikely because they don’t have specific demands or political aspirations. They only are about fighting the west and creating terror. I don’t pretend to know the best course of action here, but at the very least an attitude change is need at the top decisions makers in Iraq to confront the facts rather the false convictions.
Comments