|
Mr
Young, I agree with almost everything you said as
well. You make a valid point that we should not call
the republican resistance 'terrorist' as this aids
the black propaganda of England. The volunteers that
served in the various Irish Republican paramilitaries
were indeed very brave.
However,
there was a deliberate reason I used the term nationalist-terrorist
in stark contrast to republican-guerilla. My mistake
was only that I wasn't specific enough.
Guerillaism
and terrorism are distinguished by strategy but often
not by tactics. Guerillaism is using hit-and-run tactics,
bombings and various methods of irregular warfare
to gradually build up liberated zones, Free Derry
being a perfect example. These are used to mount larger
attacks and militarily drive the enemy from a territory.
The
examples in Cuba, the founding of the USA, the Macabes
v Rome, Vietnam and (urban facets of) the Spainish
Civil War are instances of guerilla war.
Terrorism
is by contrast using violence, or the threat of, to
achieve a social or political objective. It is not
a campaign to actually force the enemy to leave, but
to bring them to the negotiating table or achieve
a reform.
By
its very nature terrorism tends to isolate and not
be as revolutionary. The difference between each strategy
is not a moral issue as it is mostly used today. Typically
the differences are presented in everyday usage as
being guerilla = legitimate, terrorist = illegitimate
and not following the rules and conducts of warfare.
However,
it is actually theoretically possible to be a guerilla
and maim or kill many innocent people (look at some
of the wars in Africa right now) and to be a terrorist
and never even hurt any person but just damage property.
Some anarchists would fit this description.
Gerry
Adams changed the nature of the IRA's war from the
brigade structure to a cell structure. This made the
IRA incapable of expanding the war even when they
had many more weapons and support.
Gradually
the campaign was undermined and the IRA was led by
people who had little grasp of republicanism or guerillasim.
The opportunist leadership sought to bring the Brits
to the negotiating table. They were also much more
nationalist in outlook in the Redmonite sense. These
were conservative catholics who, it is clear in hindsight,
sought institutional power and not the building of
new institutions as occured in the period between
1918-1921 in Ireland.
It
is important that we learn from the mistakes of the
past. The provos moved gradually from guerillaism
and keeping the british state out of their communities,
to terrorism that sought to negotiate a brit withdrawl
and evenutally to actually administering British rule
in Ireland. As guerillaism was not suffeciently pursued,
so too did the provos reject mass struggle or class
analysis.
I
don't mean to besmirch the fine record of republican
resistance. Clearly the republican movement did an
amazing and unprecedented job of taking the war to
the British state. I don't lay the blame at the feet
of the rank-and-file either. I did mean however, to
distinguish the current leadership and their strategy
from the past.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
