The Patraeus Report

Manic Moran

Doubtless a thread on this would show up eventually, given how much coverage there is. Presumably also everyone has already made up their mind as to how much (or little) credence to give to what he and the Ambassador have to say. But something they were asked kindof raised an eyebrow for me.

One of the Congresscritters doing the questioning asked what benchmarks the Ambassador thought should be used, if he didn't like the ones that Congress set. Said Congresscritter then suggested that the Northern Irish process be used as an example: What steps in the North's peace process would be suitable benchmarks which could be applied in Iraq?

Which kindof got me thinking: Were there any set benchmarks? It struck me at the time of people just wandering through the machinations, setting their own demands (eg disarmament) which may or may not have eventually been met in their own time, and eventually muddling through to some sort of negotiated agreement which was then acted upon.

I certainly don't seem to recall any set timeline which said that "we demand to see progress in these areas by this date" but it all seems to have worked out in the end anyway. Given that the Northen parties are now involved in the Iraqi process, are they paying any attention whatsoever to benchmarks in their advising or recommendations?

NTM

Zambia

IMO Manic people stopped shooting each other over here when the economy started and there was a lot better things to be doing with ones time than chasing time honoured causes.

Basically there was not enough support from people north/South to keep it going and it was dying of anyway the peace process was a happy side effect. Sure loads of armchair republicans will jump up and say that they where willing .It takes far more of a commitment for a bloke with something to lose to start this type of violence.

If you attempted the same thing in the depression of the 80's it would never have worked.

Iraq has had its economy that was not up to much destroyed. Its a bit like the chicken and the egg scenario.

In light of Iraq I don't think the markers the Norths politican's can lay down are worth a lot.

Liam Byrne

I don't think there's enough of a similarity; maybe I'm wrong, as I know that some people viewed having the British in NI as a similar type of "occupation", but with NI there were (a) at least some people - around 50% - who supported and welcomed the "occupation" (b) a defined reason for those occupying NI to be there and (c) inherent support from outside and from other countries who recognised the need for an overall semblance of "law and order".

Yes, there are similarities in that some people viewed the occupiers as doing more harm than good, or in some cases committing atrocities themselves, the fragmented society, the dire outlook for the economy and prospects.

While Zambia simplified it a bit, it has to be said that "the devil makes work for idle hands", and so impressionable youngsters in NI thought it cool to join one side or the other......even "down here" some idiots follow like sheep and still chant "IRA" in the middle of "The Fields of Athenry", with no concept of what it means or what they're condoning :rolleyes:

Then, when there were chances of jobs, etc, there were better things to do than blow up a few kids or shoppers or kneecap the local guy that you didn't like.....likewise, I'd guess that many people up north looked south and saw prosperity and investment, and realised that they were never gonna get that unless they copped themselves on and made the place attractive to investors without the risks of getting blown to bits.

So there's probably some truth in "it's the economy, stupid"....but Iraq doesn't seem to be as commercial-obsessed as the West, so I don't know if the same carrots would work there.

Also, remember that part of the equation was Michael McDowell's stance on criminality and not putting up with the "take-all-that's-going and give nothing" stance of the IRA and Sinn Fein; but again, that's a stance from a legitimate and accepted police force (actually, two or three of them combined, if you take in the UK police and the RUC/PSNI) rather than an invader/occupier....if it were the UK police force or UK army trying to impose their will on Ireland as a whole, there would have been much less support.

moe_sizlak

another different between the millitary occupation of n . ireland and iraq is the occupiers i.e the britts had at least some things in common with the nationalist population
not so with the iraqis , people in the mid east have about as much in common with western europeans as E.T did

jonny72

For NI to have been anything like Iraq you would have needed..

The Catholics and Protestants at each other's throats
Then, both of those against the UK
Foreign fighters and terrorists from France, Scotland, Spain, Wales, etc flooding into the country attacking the UK, Protestants and Catholics
A stone age economy, barely any electricity, water, etc
The country full of readily available explosives and weapons
And all the violence multiplied by 100 at least, I mean more people die in 2 months in Iraq than 25 years in Northern Ireland..

Even then thats not even close, when you consider Iraq has to contend with so many satellite countries interfering, as well as the educated class being killed/leaving the country..

Just my opinion, but the two situations are hardly comparable..

Dalfiatach

Liam Byrne wrote:

Then, when there were chances of jobs, etc, there were better things to do than blow up a few kids or shoppers or kneecap the local guy that you didn't like.....likewise, I'd guess that many people up north looked south and saw prosperity and investment, and realised that they were never gonna get that unless they copped themselves on and made the place attractive to investors without the risks of getting blown to bits.

As a Nordie who has been living down here since 1991, I have to say the "economy" argument is nonsense. The first rumblings of what eventually became the Peace Process (TM) were in the late 80s with the first Hume-Adams talks. Haughey and Mansergh were involved in encouraging the contacts, but were very cautious about the whole thing. Then along came Albert Reynolds, and the amount of deep-cover negotiating way behind the scenes went into overdrive.

SF talking to the SDLP, FF talking to SF, SF talking to the British Government, FF putting out quiet feelers towards some Unionists and Loyalists, a veritable hive of discussion and negotiation was going on in all directions throughout 1992 and 1993, culminating in the Downing Street Declaration in December 1993. And that led, eventually, to the first ceasefires and the GFA. At that point the southern economy, while it had turned the corner from the slump of the 80s, was by no means yet the shining beacon of moolah, jobs and investment it became known for by around 1996.

The first ceasefires were in late summer 1994, but what most people don't realise is that it took about 7 years of extremely intensive negotiations involving all sides even to get that far.

Personally I think the people who stuck with it in that period, when atrocities were still happening and all sides had easy excuses to walk away at numerous points, deserve far more credit that those who came along to claim the glory after the difficult work had already been done and the shooting had largely stopped.

Post-GFA, there might be an argument that the booming southern (and slowly improving northern) economy had an effect in keeping the peace as people realised what they might lose if they went back to war - but economics had very very little to do with creating the peace in the first place.

Liam Byrne

Cheers, Dalfiatach - good to have the view of someone who was "on the ground", so to speak...

spank_inferno

Has anyone been watching the hearing on Sky news active?

The General and the ambassador seem to have great stamina!
Each commitee member seems to take 5 mins to ask a question.

I think they are doing quite well. The seem very frank with their situation there. Especialy with regard to detailing problems with reforming the iraqi security forces.

WRT politics though do people think it makes any hay for anyone?
Probably not. I think its probably the wrong forum for any presidential candidate to voice too strong an opposition to the war.

OS119

i think that Petraeus's report has been overblown in its importance, what matters is the analysis/decision about the political scene within Iraq. although its easy to see a circularity between political atrophy and violence, the violence is a product of, and can only be reduced by, politics

however well Petraeus does - and to be fair he has produced a semblance of a result - if the internal political situation doesn't start to move then he's wasting his time.

in a way Petraeus, and the US presence, is the paramedic, while he can stabilise the patient - for a time - to allow the patient time to get to hospital, its the surgeon who decides whether he lives or dies. the Iraqis themselves are the surgeons - perhaps that is the parallel with NI - the UK and RoI can cadjoul, coerce, bribe and threaten, but its only a consenting partnership that has taken NI from war to non-war, and then non-war to peace.

Manic Moran

spank_inferno wrote:

Has anyone been watching the hearing on Sky news active?

The General and the ambassador seem to have great stamina!
Each commitee member seems to take 5 mins to ask a question.

I guess it's kindof like the House of Commons, there is a set sequence of events. "Would the Prime Minister list his engagements for the day?" "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago" "Right, here's my question."

Here, the format seems to be:
1) Disassociate yourself from the New York Times advert.
2) Express how great the General and Crocker are. Often incorporate a totally irrelevant annecdote about how you met the General on a fly-by two-day trip into the country, which gave you an impression for their greatness and gave you total knowledge of the Iraq theatre.
3) Pontificate a bit on your chosen position. (Pro or anti)
4) Ask a loaded question: If pro-war, ask an easy question to repeat/elaborate on a positive point. If anti-war, ask an impossible question in order to reinforce perceived negativity.
5) Completely ignore what the General and Ambassador say. Draw your own conclusions from the argument such as "Your figures are wrong, I'm going to believe what I choose to" or "Excellent, the system is working, we were right to do this as we are"
6) Possibly (if permitted to by the Chair) make a final statement of your own, and thank the witnesses for their appearance.

I'm sure answering two days' worth of dog-and-pony is a great distraction from actually trying to deal with Iraq. Patraeus probably can't wait to get back to the bombs and rockets.

NTM

Victor

Some random notes,

---

Old and new conflicts are merged with the current one. For NI nationalists - demands for civil rights became a security issue became a nationalist issue became a socialist issue. For NI unionists - loss of position became a anti-nationalist issue became a security issue. Iraq - Cold War and Oil (Iran, Afghanistan, Israel-Egypt) became political / exploitation / religious issue (Iranian Revolution) became 'politics by other means' / retribution (Embassy Kidnappings and Iran-Iraq war) became real-politic / business (Kuwait) became religious (Infidel in Saudi Arabia) became terrorist (September 11) became powerplay (current war) became religious issue (rallying point for Christian and Muslim extremism).

Need for political solution - British army accepts they did not win. For a long time ordinary officers and soldiers realised that there were injustices and these weren't being solved. They demanded a political solution, but weren't listed to by the 'securocrats' and government.

Sympathisers - numbers of militants are low, but number of sympathisers and/or collaborators are high.

Back channels - even if you hate them, you need to talk to them.

Don't kill your enemy's leaders - this merely makes them into martyrs and the are replaced by more radical leaders.

Declaration - British had no selfish interest in Northern Ireland.

Lilywhites - the British security forces had difficulty tackling IRA members who had no prior IRA associations.

Cost - cost of losses and cost of security.

Targeting - the British cared less when conflict was confined to Northern Ireland, the London bombing campaigns of the 1990s had huge economic and social effects.

Realisation - violence cannot go on for a third generation - you can send your son to war, but you can send your grandchild. Iraq has been at was since at least 1980.

Delay - unionists and British government wanted a 3 months delay between ceasefire and start of talks. Violence = no talks.

Progress is necessary - first ceasefire collapsed in the perception of lack of progress.

Testing - loyalist violence increased for a times after the IRA ceasefires.

Decommissioning - protect the Union. To a degree meaningless as they could always buy more weapons.

Realisation - for every monster the enemy created, you have created one too. You must come to terms with this.

Preparedness - there will be set backs. Set backs can be useful (provided there is no retaliation or upping the ante) if the process still continues, as it demonstrates commitment to the process.

Amnesty **and** apology. Saying 'sorry I was wrong' is hard.

Having a roof over your head and food on your family table are the most important things in life.

Demilitarisation - started with the removal of helmets, ended with the return to garrison status.

Obituary - Paisley had to agree to something - otherwise he would have died, known as the man who said "no", not as First Minister.