Variations on a Theme

--Brian Shivers could play his ownself in the film

Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away
Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Make Ireland Irish Today
--Give Ireland Back to the Irish,
Paul McCartney and Wings

So hold on to your rifles boys and don't give up your dream
Of a Republic for the workin' class economic liberty
Then Jem yelled out "Oh Citizens this system is a curse
An English boss is a monster an Irish one even worse"
--James Connolly, Black 47

So you saved your shillings and your last six pence
Cause in God's name they built a barbed wire fence
Be glad you sailed for a better day
But don't forget there'll be hell to pay
--Rebels of the Sacred Heart,
Flogging Molly
_________________

Brian Shivers was convicted two weeks ago of the murder of two soldiers during a Real IRA gun attack on Massereene Army base in Northern Ireland three years ago. The Guardian, The Telegraph, GlobalPost and MSNBC call him a "dissident"; Reuters calls him a "nationalist". Ten years after the events of 9.11.01, we still use the terms interchangeably, though they are not commensurate.

The answer as to Mr. Shivers' correct label depends upon which side of the fence you live. In 1975, an armed Irish Republican Army member killing an armed British soldier would have been declared simple terrorism, but everything is pumped up today. Terrorism mutates according to the needs of the political climate.

History lessons are in order: Ireland was the first British colony, and though we often view it as integral part of the British empire, not all the Irish see it that way. Technically, Ireland's colonial existence is in violation of the World War II Atlantic Charter that set the elimination of colonialism as a war goal. Britons are on board with this, except in the case of Ireland. (Yes, Ranger actually wore orange into an Irish pub on St. Patrick's Day, but he did not know why he was getting the evil eye, being a Slovak and all.)

In this sense, the IRA may be seen as a legitimate "separatist" movement, or an insurgency or guerrilla war. It could also be seen as an unconventional war since it fits within the parameters of all of those events. The IRA and the ETA are the only two Euroterror groups that share the distinction of having a possible validity behind their violence (as seen from their perspective.)

However, the questions remain the same: How do we define terrorists, dissidents, insurgents and militants? What are their differences, and where do they overlap? Without correct terminology, how can they be appropriately dealt with? Our definitions are often vague and in accordance with political expediencies, but if something is legally vague, that usually equates to unconstitutionality.

An example of the expediency angle is a recent 60 Minutes episode featuring the Emir of Qatar which marveled over his game plan for improving life within his little sandbox. However, the Emir is also a big contributor to Hamas and Hizbollah; Hamas is recognized by the EU and many others as a terrorist organization, and the Council on Foreign Relations states the U.S. recognizes Hizbollah as terrorist, as well.

So why does the U.S. Department of Justice bust pathetic little pawns in the terror game while the big machers like the Emir continue to play their hand, untouched by U.S. sanctions? When Iran supports such groups the U.S. goes ballistic, yet the Emir openly provides material support to two Middle Eastern terrorist organizations. We step on the ants while the elephant sits in the middle of the room.

In addition to proper definition, we need to enact the proper responses. The British, French, Italian, Spanish and German governments neutered and countered domestic terror by applying the rule of law to the issue. There is nothing that a terror group can do that is not against the existing laws of all civilized societies (with the exception of propaganda and some financial aspects, but U.S. law covers these with "material support" and "conspiracy" charges.) Kidnapping, murder, extortion and bomb-making all violate national laws.

The terror threats faced by Europe in the 1970's and '80's are different than those faced by the U.S. today, but the concept remains the same. All terrorists are criminals, bottom line, and laws are on the books to deal with criminals.

Unless we treat them as such we will lose the war that we claim is against terrorism. When we ignore the reality of our legal system, we lose our legitimacy.

Nine Inch Nails

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear --
kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor --
with the cry of grave national emergency.
Always there has been some terrible evil at home
or some monstrous foreign power that was going
to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind
it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded.
Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem
never to have happened,
seem never to have been quite real
--Douglas MacArthur

Terrorism is the best political weapon
for nothing drives people harder
than a fear of sudden death
--Adolf Hitler

A thing is not necessarily true
because a man dies for it
--The Portrait of Mr. W. H., Oscar Wilde
_________________

USA Today ran the requisite scare photo (later picked up by Military- and Navy Times) of a human skill with a 3-inch-long, threaded steel bolt lodged near the cerebrum, headlined: "Afghan Insurgents Jamming More Objects in Bombs". D'Oh.

"Insurgents are creating more destructive roadside bombs this year by packing them with nails, screws, bolts, metal coils, ball bearings and other materials, according to doctors treating wounded U.S. and coalition troops here.

"The number of casualties suffering multiple wounds from these objects has increased from about a dozen in March to around 100 each month this summer, according to Navy Capt. Michael Mullins, spokesman for the NATO hospital operated by the U.S. Navy outside Kandahar."

Truama specialist U.S. Air Force Maj. Randy Snoots, says the bombs "are getting bigger and bigger and more full of stuff." Of course, they're not quite as big as the stuff in the U.S. inventory, which includes 5,000 pound bunker busters, 155/8" artillery, cruise missiles (that have been employed against individual targets) and Predator missiles, to name a few.

Is this supposed to shock me? We were using IED's before IED's were cool. We were trained to use rocks if we couldn't get steel or scrap iron. While it is beyond regrettable that our soldiers are getting killed by these devices, they are not some space-age innovation, nor is packing them with even more stuff.

Bombs are emotional since they are viewed as indiscriminate and arbitrary. The soldiers who become targets have no ability to protect themselves, and this is fear-producing. While one may not know the exact place and time, it is a go that traveling up and down highways in hostile territory will eventually result in your finding and IED in a way you would have preferred to avoid.

Bombs in the hands of skilled bombers have military value and are a type of force multiplier. U.S. Special Forces soldiers are taught advanced bomb enhancement techniques that have included adding a White Phosphorous grenade to the front of a Claymore to enhance its lethality. In the Vietnam War, SF A-Camps employed 40-pound cratering charges as giant Claymores simply by putting rolls of new barbed or concertina wire in front of the explosive for an extra large fragmentary effect, adding to the blast effect. These were all IED's.

The North Vietnamese Army hung Chinese Claymores, artillery/mortar duds in trees to enhance lethality; the Irish Republican Army added nails to their explosive devices; the Jewish Resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto used a bomb with metal fragments called the "Matzoh Ball", etc.

So what is newsworthy about the fact that the "insurgents" in Afghanistan are using "bigger and more full of stuff" historical devices to fight the U.S./NATO incursion? The real question is: How have the soldiers killed and wounded by these nail bombs decreased the threat of terrorism to Americans in the continental U.S.?

Further, if this is an insurgency, why are Americans being targeted? Is this insurgency against Americans, or against the Karzai government? Are the two separate entities? By definition, the insurgency must be against the Karzai government, and it is dubious that U.S. involvement is addressing the key issue which is the al-Qaeda threat against the Ole Homeland.

U.S. goals have become so muddled and convoluted that the entire theatre of operations has become a theatre of the absurd. Nail bombs will not build a nation, nor will U.S. involvement in an Afghan insurgency.

Total COIN

Americans think of themselves collectively
as a huge rescue squad on twenty-four-hour call
to any spot on the globe
where dispute and conflict may erupt
--Eldridge Cleaver

Sometimes I wonder if the world is run
by smart people who are putting us on,
or by imbeciles who really mean it
--Mark Twain
_________________

LTC (R) Ralph Peters recent article in September Armchair General is vague and muddles historical and military facts (Sound Bites Kill/Crisis watch).

Peters says killing is a measure of success in counterinsurgencies, using Roman and Russian examples to prove his point. However, the wars he refers to were actually rebellions (which Peters admits.) An insurgency would evolve into a rebellion at some point, if a legitimate government were present.

The British were not fighting insurgents in India because the Brits were not the legitimate government. As the Brits were colonial rulers, the people had the right and obligation to oppose their externally imposed rule much as we did in our American Revolution. In fact, the Indians had the better claim for self-rule.

Revolutions are not insurgencies, although there in interplay between the concepts.

Mao Zedong did not defeat the Nationalists in an insurgency, but rather open, conventional war. Mao's heavy firepower reflects conventional versus counterinsurgency tactics; suggesting otherwise is nonsensical.

Peters says historical records show that defeating insurgencies has been 90% military in concept and execution, but where is his data? If an insurgency is indigenous and legitimate, then military means will never defeat insurgents. Peters gives no examples to the contrary. Peters cuts police and legal means out of the COIN lexicon, which is non-doctrinal and ignores the realities of insurgencies.

Police action is always a more useful tool than is military action. Police action posits legitimacy if properly employed.

Not all insurgencies are bad. History illustrates U.S. support of insurgencies in Cuba, which led to our involvement in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. further supported insurgents in its acquisition of the rights to the Panama Canal Zone, and supported the Contras in the 1980's.

The word insurgent is not necessarily bad, and one must bear in mind that U.S. COIN policy is not aimed at insurgencies against the U.S., but now rather against citizens of dubious client states. And to what end?

Peters, like most military types, talks of victory, but without being able to clearly define the concept. He ignores some obvious realities, like the fact that the Roman, British, French, Russian, Ottoman and Habsburg empires have one thing in common: all saw their greatness flicker in large part due to military overreach. It is not so far back in the memory's vault that the Soviet Union fell immediately after their defeat in Afghanistan.

Peters also fails to mention how the U.S. will pay for these meddling COIN operations, but that doesn't trouble his acolytes. For the chickenhawks, such exigencies are of little matter. Peters remains their darling, keeping their battle blood up, which is all that's required.

On FOX news recently, Peters called upon the Taliban to dispense with the deserter (in his summary judgment), Bowe Bergdahl, saving the U.S. so very much in legal bills. He is brilliantly feeding off the Hanoi Jane residue, which is alive and well. The preemptive murder, carried out by a proxy -- fits in so well with the U.S.'s new jurisprudence.

It is all so easy from the armchair.