Skip to main content

Iraq, Northern Ireland and Birmingham

One of the reasons why the British Armed forces have not been as disastrous as the US Forces in Iraq is their experience in Northern Ireland.

That is not to say that in any way they should stay in Iraq, but it is worth looking at conflict in Northern Ireland and gang warfare in Birmingham and using those experiences try to understand what is happening in Iraq.

I have uploaded some of the pictures I took of murals in Northern Ireland (not all of which are paramilitary murals) to flickr.

These are just two:
mural1mural3
One is from the IRA, the other is from the UVF.

The first thing to understand about these conflicts is that they are strongly driven by emotions. The second thing is that sub-groups amongst each group also conflict with each other.

This story about the conflict between the UDA and UVF tells something about conflict within the protestant groups.

The main thing to understand is that there is an emotional drive to revenge that frequently goes far beyond a deterrent form of action.

Within Birmingham there are a number of gangs, happily not as influential as the paramilitary groups, but also armed to some extent. They do not have the same level of support in the communities in which they live that the groups in Northern Ireland have.

There is, however, still the same desire for revenge. In Birmingham if there has been a shooting then the gang members of the same gang that has been shot then have a desire to retaliate. Our challenge in Birmingham, which with the sterling efforts of Operation Ventara (a police gangs initiative) is to get the gangs to accept that the police should be allowed to take enforcement action against people who have shot their gang members.

This was the real challenge when the girls were shot in Aston in early 2003. It was a challenge to get the enforcement to operate through a judicial and investigative process rather an a tit-for-tat retaliation.

Now the issue in Iraq is to understand that really what is happening is a translation of Northern Ireland into Arabic. A big difference is neither side really want the occupation and many Iraqis resent the way in which the occupying forces are snaffling oil money. Obviously the conflict is far far more violent, but the factional nature of the conflict is similar. There is also the additional factor of more factions.

The same form of emotional resentment is building up. The new bombings are in a sense part of a sectarian battle that has gone on for centuries.

In the 1800s strife between the Muwahhiddun (also known as Wahabis) and Shi'a developed and in many ways we have that form of conflict today in Iraq.

The balancing point is that at which the Shi'a who are suffering many of these deaths switch into wanting the occupation to end so that they can act to protect themselves.

There are often two ways forward which can occur to take conflict forward. One is conflict resolution where matters are resolved on a step by step basis and issues are resolved through negotiation. The other is a mixture of increasing the balance of terror and the consequent ethnic cleansing that occurs as people move out of mixed areas into those in which they feel safe.

My fear about Iraq is that now so much damage has been done by the occupying forces that the balance of terror option is one which there is an emotional demand for amongst the patriarchs.

It is important always to remember that people may rationally want peace, but this can be trumped by an emotional desire for revenge. In what are essentially feudal societies this is something that can last for generations (and in Iraq has to some great extent already done so).

This times report includes the phrase “He had no obvious enemies, but he was a Shia from the Amiri tribe, and that was reason enough for him to be attacked.”

Sadly the same article uses the phrase "turf war".

In the mean time the ground troops particularly from the US forces will continue to increase the political temperature of ethnic conflict. This also spills over into the rest of the world.

What the US should try to understand, but I am sure that they won't is that they cannot make things any better by keeping ground forces in Iraq.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
I'm not sure whether your opening statement is more ignorant and offensive about Ireland or Iraq. The reason the British were more welcome in Basra than the US in Bagdhad has nothing at all to do with their so-called experience in Northern Ireland and more to do with the demographics of the two areas. In Basra the majority of the population would initially have welcomed anyone who got rid of Saddam and were therefore not going to resist the occupation with the ferocity of those resisting around the capital. After 400 years in Northern Ireland the British learnt nothing, other than to act as a sectarian army supporting the loyalists and oppressing the nationalist population. They already knew how to assasinate people using the SAS, they already knew how to use the colonised host paramilitary groups to carry out their dirty work for them before they embarked on their latest Irish mission in 1967. If the British learnt anything in the North of Ireland in the last 40 years it was how to fight dirtier wars and give the impression that they were simply acting as peacemakers between fighting factions of 'thick paddies'.... whereas in reality, in Iraq and Ireland, they are not part of the solution, they are the problem.
john said…
I accept that the British Forces have over more than 400 years caused problems in Ireland generally.

I still argue, however, that they are not as bad as the US forces. That is not only because there were fewer Sunnis in al Basrah (remember Baghdad is a Shi'a City), but also because they were more sensitive to such conflicts whereas the US Military really did not care that much on the ground. That is not, however, to say that they have been perfect.

We agree that the troops should be withdrawn from Iraq.
TonyF said…
I find the remarks made about Army collaboration with protestant paramilitary quite offensive.

Having served in Ulster in the 70's we got flak from both communities.We, the ordinary squaddies, came to the conclusion very early that the only people you could trust were your mates.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: