"Uncle Sam v. Taliban / John Bull v. IRA" Topic

Really not much different, other than the fact that the IRA won despite much longer odds.

Btw, I'm simply not going to respond to posters who say that the British won. The union jack isn't flying over anything but Ulster anymore, and that's not the definition of a win. So dive in and declare victory if you like, and I will just ignore it.

Anyway.

The IRA was far inferior to the Taliban in manpower and materiel (Great Britain had definitely been greater, but it was still the number 4 military power on earth by most standards). Ireland was also a very small country physically, and one that the British had occupied for hundreds of years, despite almost the same number of rebellions. The British had a solid and mostly popular presence in the north, and you could spit from one side of the Irish Sea and stand a fair chance of at least a splash on somebody standing on the opposite side. And, despite its name, the Irish Sea wasn't exactly teeming with Irish warships.

Contrast America's present defeat and debacle in Afghanistan.

Much larger, more populous nation, and one that was a very long way from home. Also, America had nothing like the complete investment of Afghanistan that Britain had of Ireland.

Afghanistan was surrounded, not by "The Afghan Sea" but by other nations that, while not necessarily friendly to it, were decidedly either actively hostile to America, or at least very cautious about their dealings with it.

So what's my point?

Both the IRA and the Taliban really show that you can drive out a foreign invader with very few resources if you just have the stick-with-itness to make it happen, and both the IRA and the Taliban did.

There isn't really anything amazing about the outcome of either conflict. It will also not be amazing if each of the said powers moves back in, at some point and some level, to the target nation.

Pretty classic examples of "you have stuff we want" (even if said 'stuff' is only bases that export bombs) vs "Yeah, but we want to keep our stuff."

Sooner or later, cultures have enough common interests that they assimilate… or they don't.

And in the end, all the drones and tanks in the world won't make it otherwise.

I will say that the IRA did have one advantage that the Taliban did not, and that was a large and wealthy ex-pat Irish-American population that was decidedly friendly and willing to fund it.

However, the effectiveness of that tends to be somewhat overblown, and little could have been done if the RN had just blockaded the "Irish" Sea.

But more on that at another time. Perhaps I'll suggest that the tmp membership does a little research on three other lesser known British defeats that illustrate a similar principle: the Cod Wars.

There is a big difference between just leaving and surrendering and being defeated.

Need more info. Who are you saying just left, and who surrendered and were defeated? Iou

I am confused why you think the IRA won anything. Nobody left Northern Ireland. It's still part of the UK and not Eire. The IRA wanted a unified Ireland and Did. Not. Get. It.

There has been a devolved executive, but that is limited in scope – unable to set things like foreign policy, border control or taxation – just like the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies. They are still part of the UK.

The devolved government hasn't even had a continuous executive since the formation in '98. It keeps reverting to home rule (i.e. Westminster) when the government is unable to be formed as no party can build a majority.

An Israeli military theorist observed:

"Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be recognised that the Army did not 'win' in any recognisable way; rather it achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld [sic] said, that success is unique."

If you think that the end of the Troubles was a victory for the IRA (who, incidentally, almost killed me on two occasions (Bishopsgate in '93 and South Quay in '96) so I have something of a personal stake in the matter) then you have badly misunderstood the end state of the process. There were no winners, not the British Army, the IRA, the UVF or any of the other paramilitary groups. If anybody won it was the people of Northern Ireland in that they got a political process instead of a system of violence.

I equate "defeat" with surrender as has been historically the case -- Japan, Germany, Lee, Napoleon, etc, etc, etc.
Simply growing weary of something and coming to a realization that the end will not justify the means is not defeat.
"Defeat" suggests the inability to fight on, or use all available force to achieve victory -- unwillingness to do so is quite different.
In fact, the honor in having the courage to end something that needed ended, knowing how the story will be spun may well be a victory for everyone involved.

Russ Dunaway

Speechless. But probably just as well. For now.

This week's comedy post

@Gorgrat,

Assuming that your basic assumptions are correct (I don't agree personally, but that doesn't have to matter), it still doesn't follow that your conclusions are correct. There are lots of examples in the British Empire of the British winning a conflict and then leaving anyway: South Africa, Malaya, Kenya and so on. The Soviet Union has some great examples of countries becoming independent without a fight at all, in a way unimaginable 10-15 years before it happened. OTOH, Tibet or the Sioux nation or whatever may not be free for 100s of years. So there is a very strong argument that the result in such conflicts is 99% a factor of what the 'Imperial' power is doing and feeling and the military actions of the insurgent side are almost irrelevant. To return to your example of Ireland, the (relatively) much weaker Britain in 1650, 1690 and 1790, and anytime in between, would certainly not have been defeated in Ireland by the level of threat posed by Irish Republicanism in the 1910s and 1920s.

Which IRA are we talking about their have been several versions over the years? If you are talking about the most recent troubles the IRA didn't drive anyone out they're stated intention was a united Ireland which didn't happen (it might one day but that's more likely to be down to Brexit than the IRA) and protection of Catholics from loyalists.

In both Afghanistan and Northern Ireland after many years, and lots of bloodshed, the upshot was we ended up pretty much back where we started.the Taliban are just going to pick up where they left off. At least in Northern Ireland Sinn Féin probably feel like they have a seat at the political table now but orange men still march and low level sectarianism continues.

Also the concept of foreign invader is a much murky and grey area when it comes to Northern Ireland.

The US was not defeated in Afghanistan, the Afghans were.

Kids, Britain ruled Ireland almost since the collapse of the Pale at least. There's a very good argument that they effectively ruled the whole island during the Pale.

Then after a bloody conflict of considerable brutality on both sides (and I say that as someone who had a relative in the black and tans) all of a sudden the British say, "Well, we gave them a good thrashing, didn't we. Now just to prove how nice we are, we'll pack up and go home. You paddies play nice."

Delusional.

Gorgat you need to be more specific which IRA ( there have been several incarnations) you are talking about and which period of Irish history. I'm guessing you are talking about the Easter uprising and post WW1? where as most people will assume you are talking about the troubles of the 7Os and 80s.

Interesting.

It took me a few minutes to write that (had to take a break, the dogs were getting into something) and when I finished and posted it, I find somebody else has posted something saying America didn't lose, the Afghans did.

Really?

Seems to me a bunch of Afghans are running the place right now. You (and I) may not like their politics, but they are the ones running the place.

At some point, you just have to recognize that your side loses.

This can be the Americans in Vietnam or Afghanistan. It doesn't mean that America isn't a great nation. It doesn't mean there weren't economic reasons that forced us to pull out. It just means that the other guy was on top of the heap when things were done.

So too with England/Great Britain. A mighty nation with an excellent military history and tradition. That absolutely doesn't mean they never lost a war.

Last time I checked, they were no longer the ruling power in Orleans, Calais, Boston or Dublin.

They lost? So what?

Look. You're a bunch of grown men. Rewrite history if it soothes your egos to do so, but I'm not going to continue arguing about something so childishly obvious.

Sorry I brought the whole damn thing up.

So, okay. You win. The sun never sets on the British Empire.

Nighty night, kids

Apologies to Prince Rupert if I haven't been sufficiently clear.

Yes. I am referring to the Irish War of Independence, the result of which was Britain no longer governing the southern three quarters of Ireland.

I know you guys scoff at wikipedia when it doesn't say what you want, but here is the article just so we know what we are talking about.

Yes. Britain did lose. One day they were running the whole Island, the next day, only a tiny slice of it. That's defeat in anybody's book.

No disgrace to the British. It was a close thing. But they lost. Please note that the treaty resulted in the creation of the Irish Free State. Note the word "Free" as in, we're ruling ourselves now. Of course, having won, the Irish didn't rule themselves particularly well, but they did rule themselves.

link

Two big differences.
Firstly IRA went into peace talks because they had failed with military action. The leadership was dead, interned, or on the run.

More importantly they had good publicity, so "Brits" we're all thugs. IRA were heroes, never mind the knee cappings, the beatings, the tar and feathering of people. The bombing of civilians is blamed on Security Force not doing their job. So British and American politicians believed them.

As for the U.S. funding the IRA, some years ago, a drink Jewish American friend of a friend, told me , with great not how he gave money to IRA. Will never forget the look on his face when I said " That's okay I give money to PLO"

Interesting comparison with current events – Ireland's a little more complicated than 'the next day, only a tiny slice of it' was under British control suggests.

The Brits lost in 1921 because they ceased to have the will to carry on, largely due to the weariness of winning the Great War.

They believed deaths and costs in Ireland would go on unless they came to some face saving agreement. Whereas Collins and many others knew the IRA were beaten militarily in Ireland so grabbed the same branch when offered.

That the IRA did not get what they wanted in 1921 is evidenced by the Civil War that broke out in 1922 and was at least as bloody as the fight against the British. The Irish Free State was a Dominion of the British Commonwealth with the King a its head of state.

It retained Dominion Status until 1937 when DeValera forced through a new constitution just in time to avoid taking on the Third Reich, despite many Irishmen joining the British Army to fight fascism.

Of course the Irish situation has not yet been finally resolved. Brexit and the complicated interaction of the Good Friday Agreement and attempted trade agreements with the EU mean it is hard to see the British Government being anymore firm in their support of Unionism than the US has been in the support of the Afghan Government.

America similarly lost the will to prosecute the Afghan war. Which hasn't yet ended. The legitimate government remains in being in the Panjshir, offering to negotiate but ready to fight on.
Things seldom end neatly on a single day because a politician wants them to.

Gunnerphil

There is no meaning to the statement that the winner failed militarily. The IRA won. They used the few advantages they had well. The British used the many advantages they had badly. The result was a brilliant bluff.

There's also no point talking about honor (you didn't, but that's the next natural place to go) in a situation where one side is badly outclassed by the other. The highschool football linebacker goes home and cries to his mother because the nerdy D&D player jammed a handful of lead miniatures into his eyes, and then kicked him in the testicles, instead of "fighting fair."

There is no such thing as a fair fight against a bigger opponent. You either do everything you can with what you have, or prepare to see your wives and kids murdered by the Black and Tans.

Incidentally, the great uncle I spoke of managed to get some money for a ticket to America from my great grandfather, along with the words, "and don't come back, or they will kill you, and I will tell them where to find you."

Was it honorable for the British to use the Black and Tans as hired murderers? Again, not the question. Britain just used the assets it had very poorly, and in so doing, helped turn public opinion against itself.

Gwydion

"…they believed deaths and costs in Ireland would go on… …Collins knew the IRA were beaten militarily, so…"

You are absolutely right. And the result was the guppy swallowing the whale, or at least taking a far greater than guppy sized bite out of him. The British had a full house, the IRA had a pair of threes. They just played it better.

As to the Third Reich? Yes again. But, again, that's the way you have to play it when you're the guppy. You take every advantage. Those who talk of fighting honorably are those who outnumber and outclass the enemy. Ireland had to become cunning, and it did.

***

Gwydion and gunnerphil

Effectively, same situation with the US and the Taliban. In fact, my beloved US played it far worse than the British did. They had rotted to the core societally and militarily, with General Milley screaming about wanting to understand his white rage rather than trying to understand the situation in Afghanistan.

We're paying the price, and I think we will continue to.

In fact, my beloved US played it far worse than the British did. They had rotted to the core societally and militarily, with General Milley screaming about wanting to understand his white rage rather than trying to understand the situation in Afghanistan.

Sadly to many that is not obvious … some in our Federal Gov't. Well that is obvious too …

We're paying the price, and I think we will continue to.

Too true … yet again some don't get that.

Legion 4

I'll go you a step farther and say that the vast majority don't get it. We have had it way to soft for way too long. To tell the truth, this is no longer America. It's what happens when people suck up the good stuff America provided, and give America nothing in return.

I have to say that from a purely military perspective the Taliban resurrection and ultimate victory is impressive.

Note they fought a superpower to a standstill with far less resources that the Muhajadeen against USSR in 1980s or the North Vietnamese in 1960-70s, both of whom had super power support.

In fact the fascinating thing about modern Islamic insurgency is how mutable and flexible it is.

I think it helps they are working on indefinite timescales and that tactical ​defeat is viewed as acceptable. Defeat of Taliban in 2001 or ISIS is viewed as but one small setback in a conflict they know will last for centuries.

The other interesting things the Islamists do is that they wage constant warfare but on a small scale and distributed across the whole planet from France to Mali to Syria to Afghanistan to Philippines.

And each warzone might involve many Islamist groups who may even occasionally be in conflict with each other but in the long run that makes them next to impossible to destroy as its completely decentralised.

It makes it really hard for west to make its decisive firepower mean much.

Islamist method of war also takes into account western weaknesses such as the short public attention spans, public disassociation with wars waged by their government, the news entertainment media as well as western values* (eg respect for life, avoiding civilian deaths etc).

*China too views western values as a weakness and is exploiting them.

arealdeadone

To put it bluntly, they still believe in their god and we've kicked ours to the curb.

The Muslims, on the average, have it nowhere near so good as we do. Maybe that's their great strength. They have no choice but to fight for something better.

Gorgat,

You've hit the nail on the head.

We'll be all dead and buried and this fight will still be happening albeit with a much weaker west than it is now.

Amen, I'm sad to say.

The Muslims, on the average, have it nowhere near so good as we do.

Dangerous to generalize. Lots of wealthy Muslims too. Also, the idea of 'fighting for something better' is a Western materialistic concept.

Dangerous to generalize. Lots of wealthy Muslims too.

The average still applies. Sure there's a few rich Bangladeshis and even quite a few middle class ones. Doesn't mean the vast majority of the population isn't poor.

Apply to Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Indonesia or average Islamic country of your choice.

Personally I hate this modern emphasis on outliers and exceptions. It's literally designed to kill debate and discussion and make decision making impossible.

If 90% of people drive a vehicle with an engine capacity under 2.5 litres and 10% drive vehicles with an engine capacity of over 2.5 litres and out of those maybe 1% drives a vehicle with a capacity of over 4 litres (like latest Mustangs of Jaguar F Types with 5.0 litre engines), the 10% let alone the 1% does not negate the 90%. The average car is still under 2.5 litres, not a 5.0 litre Mustang or Jaguar F-Type!!

And the scientific method including statistics has methods of dealing with outliers.

First, comparing NI to Afghanistan is kind of absurd; the differences FAR outweigh any similarities.

Second, you can't determine a win or a loss in war without knowing the political objectives you wanted to achieve. I would be hard pressed to identify what the US objectives were in Afghanistan. To begin with, it was pretty clear, get Bin Laden. (And we missed an opportunity to declare victory when we killed him.) But that gave way to something else….we all have our opinions, but show me something official at the national leadership level. I suspect the US objective(s) evolved over these 20 years.

And that, I think was the problem. What was the political objective we were actually trying to achieve. When your objectives are as clear as mud, you can interpret things any way you want.

Having said that, we screwed the pooch on the evacuation.

raylev3,

The muddy goals did include a "democratic" US allied Afghanistan and to defeat the Taliban otherwise you wouldn't have stayed until now. That goals are clearly a failure.

I don't think that was the defined goal by the national leadership. You can argue for it, and to get Bin Laden (done), and to create a government that would prevent terrorist groups from attacking us or our allies, and…..more. We all have something we can chose from; that's the problem. If we work with the Taliban and if they prevent terrorist groups from attacking us or our allies, will that be success?

I don't think that was the defined goal by the national leadership

US just spent nearly 20 years and trillions of dollars nation building in Afghanistan -clearly it was a goal even if not specified in a particular policy document.

Still don't really want to post in this … But IRA are utterly SCUM… 'Some' may have had a 'cause'… but… bombing 'Bandsmen',
Ceremonial troops with Horses and SWORDS… the Inniskillen 'CENOTAPH' bombing… earlier Harrods or civilian targets… AND ALL THE REST! But, Yet, 'Shoot To Kill' was portrayed as 'unacceptable' by some? DAMN RIGHT, the SAS got some at Gibraltar… NO, they did not have weapons… at time! Nor did most of the IRA victims. RUC 'Squealing like a piggy'. (Equate with Drone Strikes?).
And, yes, the 'Loyalist' factions have become almost as bad in their reciprocal actions.

And NOW, MPs in UK Parliament… not that THAT is worth ****! ,but With a Devolved Government! As a result of downright EVIL actions? That is 'Politicians' for you!

But SOME still sing praises?

Heedless Horseman

…the IRA were utterly scum…

Didn't want to go in this direction, but the British used the Black and Tans as mercenaries to terrorize and murder women and children.

Does that make the British utterly scum? No. It means they were human, and committed atrocities too.

Now, please, let's keep the polemics out of it.

Heedless is talking about the terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s.

Gorgrat, you are talking about the IRA of the 1910s and 1920s.

Two completely different organisations. As was mentioned above, there seems to be some confusion about this with people talking at cross-purposes!

I don't think anyone would defend the Black and Tans as being a good idea. Likewise terrorism…

I hate this sort of posting. 'Polemics'.
But… when someone posts a 'view'…which you believe to fundamentally wrong… do you just allow it to go unchallenged? Or, let others begin to think that it 'may' be 'right'… because 'unchallenged'.
… but, if not 'challenged'… where 'can' a view end up?

Backing ourselves into corners. as 'people' do.

NO PEOPLE ON EARTH have NEVER committed 'some' sort of 'atrocity'. British have. Irish have. Americans have. Afghans have…

It just wearies me… and DON'T want the fighting. Pretty much as most 'British' were, after WW1… which is why Irish 'republicanism' 'Won'… Irishmen, just DON'T B****y Stop. Some GREAT fellers… but a LOT of B*****ds, too… BOTH camps.

Just cannot allow the IRA to be 'justified', by default.

Gorgrat… I wish this had not been brought up, either.

I'll go you a step farther and say that the vast majority don't get it. We have had it way to soft for way too long. To tell the truth, this is no longer America. It's what happens when people suck up the good stuff America provided, and give America nothing in return.

Amen to that Brother ! Amen …

Islamist method of war also takes into account western weaknesses such as the short public attention spans, public disassociation with wars waged by their government, the news entertainment media as well as western values* (eg respect for life, avoiding civilian deaths etc).

*China too views western values as a weakness and is exploiting them.

Yes and they see blood in the water now even more so … especially now …

Having said that, we screwed the pooch on the evacuation.

I feel very much the same. I had posted on other threads here. Ignoring good actionable intel, abandoning Bagram, and the list is long on all the poor decisions made from the top. Costing 13 good men and women. Hopefully there won't be anymore.

Let's please drop the issue of who the evil baddies were. This can just go on forever.

I know well educated people who will get pretty incensed to this day over such occasions as the Flight of the Geese, such persons as Oliver Cromwell and Lord Trevelyan, and such units as the Black and Tans. Families have long memories.

It's always possible to drag these arguments back into the past forever, with an unending stream of, "Yes, we did that, but you bastards did this first…"

So how about I just apologize now for all the bad things the IRA, of whatever incarnation, did, and we let it go at that.

I'm sorry.

Gorgrat… you are so VERY right, there… I don't think it will EVER end.

Hmm… I have never had a 'policy' of apoligising for that which was not of MY own doing… BUT, Thank You…
So… I also apologise for English / British incarnations who have hurt Irish.
I'm sorry, too… much Hurt for All.

There is still a streak of 'Celtic' in the North British… so Hope we are Both OK to 'back off'… Honour served, but Swords left where they 'Should Be'.

Thank You for allowing a little 'peace'… wish it would be more widespread.

Ps: I Do NOT like Cromwell… and had never heard of Trevelyan… Thanks for bringing him to notice!

Well said sir, and much appreciated!

So …. The Taliban fought the US to a standstill did they ? How did they fare when us combat troops were in country ? Oh , that's right , they ran to Pakistan

The talibans get out of their holes only when an incompetent POTUS made an idiotic accord (DOHA), then a senile one ordered an absurd retreat without ANY organization. I can only imagine how a lot of people will be rolling in the grave, with this lethal blow to a nation's credibility, every terrorist now will think that the game can be re-made again…and again

I'm seeing the IRA having a huge advantage over the Taliban : Britain had been at war for 4 years, had lost a lot of treasure (from creditor to debitor of the US) and that the British government would have been hard pressed to make a new war palatable to a population that was already weary of war. Just my 2 pence, but your mileage may vary…;)

foxbat

All of that is absolutely correct. But the guppy still swallowed the whale. Granted, the whale had just gone nine rounds outside its weight division, but the guppy still won.

Oh, back again… it doesn't end.
Guppy did not swallow the Whale… Whale just 'sicked up'.

Same thing Afghanistan or Vietnam, Laos, USSR in Afghanistan, British Empire or others.

A'win' might not be a 'win' but 'winners' will see it so.
I'm not writing this right… ain't been to bed!

Put it this way.. a KILLER WHALE, hungry and p****d off… Guppy has no chance… but not worth the bother.
If whale too tired.. Guppy can waggle its fins… and shout "I've Won!" But NOT swallowed the whale. Just not been eaten. Result… all ok.