‘Ireland and the War against ISIS’ By Donal Lavery

screen-shot-2016-10-19-at-12-10-18

Pearse once wrote that violence can sometimes and when necessary be a sanctifying and glorious force in the world. Undoubtedly he was referring to the process of ‘creative destruction’, where chaos and revulsion are replaced by construction and overthrowing an old order to form a new. But let’s take a look at things in a far corner of the globe which impact the safety of every citizen on this island.

The Middle East is in flames, with the match having been lit by Bush and Blair’s mindless debacle into the affairs of the Arab world. But the seeds were sewn before that blunder. Thatcher and Reagan armed and financed to the hilt the Taliban regime in the 1980s, as a means of combating the Russians in Afghanistan. They may have been flawed, but neither leader was naive – Just like with the Ulster Loyalists, they knew the type of people they were resourcing. These bloodthirsty Jihadists were the same horrid form then as they are now, with the only difference being that their present sights are set firmly on the West – namely Europe and America.

But how does a small country like Ireland defend itself or prepare for a global conflict of this nature? Surely our status in the EU leaves us open to target by such dark forces, which we never helped create? That’s not a question I can fully answer. But as a student of military history, I view the world and life as a timely game of chess. And sometimes, a stale-mate is a noble existence to aim for.

Unlike the IRA or ANC who the media often wrongly compare them to, these Jihadists in ISIS don’t have a set of clear and deliverable demands or objectives which nation-states can provide, even if they wanted to. They are brutal in methods and rotten in purpose, with pragmatism off the table entirely. The means cannot actually bring about the ends, in their case, for the world will not accept Sharia Law/Jihad being imposed on it; just as many colonised people refused to accept the subjugation of Empires, old and new.

We cannot control how the world or others act in this regard but we can influence how we respond to it as a nation. Some people have asked me bluntly why we simply don’t join the fight and declare war on ISIS? To which I reply  – ISIS is not a thing upon which war can actually be declared; They are not a nation-state, with clearly visible targets and interests. And if you were to make them a “nation-state” and decide to recognise them as a nation, and treat them as a nation, then you would in fact have installed ISIS in the very position they wish to obtain by means of terror. Put simply, to declare war on a non-visible entity would mean waging carnage against a mass of people, most of whom would be innocent, and who would subsequently become enraged enough to retaliate by joining the people we set out to destroy. The methods of any group of people are, after all, decided by the very same approach taken by their opponents. The fairer and more humane we are in our stance towards fellow human beings, the greater depreciation we will have on the numbers euphoric at the thought of joining them.

But this primitive notion of shooting them on sight or occupying Arab states is a bygone fantasy. We are not a Super-Power; And nor should we be aligned with any. Whatever military hardware a sophisticated nation like Ireland may amass, we cannot ignore the fact that even the all-powerful United States could not impose its will on the poor impoverished peoples of South-East Asia.

Our response must be continued neutrality in the face of partisan pressures from both sides. This is not a mobilised army of Hitlers we are fighting, although they are certainly fascist. These people come out of the shadows and blow themselves up over the legacy created by Western Governments. But crucially, they wear no uniform.

Our approach to ISIS must be an Irish solution to a potential Irish problem – that is, we respond with the necessary amount of force only when they set foot on Irish soil. However, we must bear in mind that age old advice that those who would sacrifice Liberty for the sake of Security will in the end enjoy neither. And by that I mean denying anyone the right to due process and a fair trial because of any ethnic or religious characteristics. If we change our way of doing things, our system of laws and rights which have been hard fought for, then their efforts really will have destroyed our freedom and democratic methods. Emergency legislation remains the apparatus of oppression.

As someone who has had relatives serving in the Irish Defence Forces, I would find no empathy with any Minister or President unduly willing to send them into harm’s way, unless with due cause and with all diplomatic efforts exhausted beforehand. But that doesn’t mean we need to be soft either. As a nation, our message to Jihadists has to be firm but fair – ”We have no quarrel with the Arab world and we wish to see all oppression there ended. But as a people who have suffered endlessly at the hands of alien forces using the most brutal reign of murder, we know all too well what terror involves, including combatting it. And if you, or any of your surrogates for that matter, should do anything to harm the sons and daughters of this land, then if the mercy of God spares you in place of us, be it so.”
 

6 Responses to ‘Ireland and the War against ISIS’ By Donal Lavery

  1. Donal Kennedy October 19, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

    Very sound, except you speak of “the Arab world” as if it were coterminus with Islam.Many Arabs are Christian and more non-Arabs than Arabs are Moslem.
    I have worked with and socialised with a great many Moslems, none of them Arabs, and none of them a threat to anybody, And I’ve been treated by Moslem Doctors and Dentists and survived in good health. I understand that Moslem Arabs are, for the most part, highly civilised
    and admirable people with no desire to dominate their neighbours or do any of us harm.
    I wish I could say the same of certain members of the UN Security Council. I once believed that, for instance, the American war on Vietnam was a blunder arising from idealism, rather
    than a calculated crime reaching back at least as long as the Eisenhower Administation.
    Like the American War on Mexico in the 1840s, and the American War on Spain following
    the accidental blowing up of the USS Maine it was a war of robbery. The Americans killed
    at the Alamo earlier, were no better than the Jameson Raiders in South Africa later.
    In 1932 De Valera addressed the League of Nations demanding they uphold its Charter and impose sanctions on Japan for its attack on Mamchuria. When Fascist Italy attacked
    Abyssinia in 1936 Dev urged sanctions, including War if necessary on Italy, and was willing
    to ask the Dail to commit Irish troops to the defence of the Charter. In each case the League’s most powerful members, Britain and France,which were friendly with Japan’s Militarists and Italy’s Fascists sided with their friends against the League’s Charter.

    The USUK demand for regime change in Syria is contrary to the UN Charter and seems to arise from base motives. The BAATHISTS would not be my chosen drinking buddies but
    scare me less than their opponents in Syria, the Pentagon and the British Foreign Office.
    Fascists sided with their friend

  2. Wolfe tone October 19, 2016 at 2:31 pm #

    “But as a student of military history, ”

    You may continue your studies a bit more if you want to realise where ISIS came from.

    “These bloodthirsty Jihadists were the same horrid form then as they are now, with the only difference being that their present sights are set firmly on the West – namely Europe and America.”

    They most certainly do not have their sights firmly on the west, rather, they have their sights firmly on states that are not strictly Sunni. Coincidentally the Sunni states they never attack have very close links to the west.

  3. PF October 19, 2016 at 4:51 pm #

    “Unlike the IRA or ANC who the media often wrongly compare them to, these Jihadists in ISIS don’t have a set of clear and deliverable demands or objectives which nation-states can provide, even if they wanted to.”

    So if they had (and they do) a set of clear demands would that make a difference?

  4. Kevin Corrigan October 19, 2016 at 5:07 pm #

    The Russian Battle Group is heading to the English Channel as we speak, how much closer do they need to get? Perhaps the Irish should hitch a ride back to Moscow so you can do your fund raising there instead of the US. Are you sure you will be well received? Protesting in Shannon while hiding under the NATO umbrella…Come on gents, which side are you on?

  5. Donal Kennedy October 19, 2016 at 10:00 pm #

    I thought the English Channel was an international sea and the Russians have as much right to sail there as the So-Called NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation have to sail the Baltic,
    the Mediterranean and China Seas.
    The always unreliable Fergal Keane OBE has got into a sweat telling us that Russia has
    nuclear-capable missiles ON RUSSIAN SOIL? What ever next? Russian soldiers in Moscow.

    Hiding under the NATO umbrella? What Rot? Hasn’t one NATO member had boots on Irish
    bodies for years. When the Warsaw Pact was dissolved NATO had no further excuse for
    existing. What did your Daddy do to you Kevin that you hate us Irish so much?

  6. Dominic Hendron October 19, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

    War is basically a punishment for an errant world. Until that simple fact is understood Cain will continue with his murderous rage.