Strategic Consideration in Restraint in War: Military Retreats - Research Paper Example

 Hart details the facts elaborately in his introduction, to document that his book is the first to explore Collin's early years prior to the Easter Rising. This is useful backgrounder information, as for the mindset of the individual, how it formed and developed to lead the Irish struggle for independence. At critical junctures, he single-handedly created the Irish history that had a deep impact on world history. Invasion and colonization were part of the history of Ireland. It was a country that was invaded and resettled. Such invasions ultimately paved way for British colonization and to this day Ireland maintains an imperial relationship with Great Britain. That influence gradually extended to the domains of economic, social, political and cultural. The century year old relationship is the root cause of the problem with Ireland. Ireland is struggling to find and establish its real identity; its own productive and distinct culture. Not only the politicians, but the poets, writers, and artists also joined the movement to create an Irish national spirit by 1921. Why did it occur in the period 1910-23 and not earlier or later? The movement for Independence of Ireland was for namesake until 1910. Hart writes, “The story of Michael Collins is also the story of a movement. The IRB and Sinn Fein were at best marginal players in Irish politics in 1910, and the separatist Irish Volunteers weren’t much more important before 1916. Yet these were the central institutions of the revolution to come…. Michael Collins was, therefore, at the right place at the right time.”(p.413) With a dynamic leader like Michael Collins at the helm to guide the destiny of the movement for an independent Ireland, the struggle began to take concrete shape at break-neck speed. Many youngsters, hitherto unknown entities, joined ranks of the freedom fighters for the cause of Ireland and to wrest power at the various levels. Hart writes, “…..unknown young men of no importance who suddenly took hold of their country’s history…. (p.413) Collins tightened his grip over the movement. Hart further writes, “Collin’s takeover of Intelligence allowed him to start his war against the police without having to seek permission, and thereby helped launch the guerrilla war as a whole.”(p.415) Understand Collins to understand the struggle he led with such brilliance and organized his people within such a short period. Hart writes, “If we want to understand Collins, we must seek out and establish the patterns that structured his life. How did he organize his work? How did he solve his problems? How did he win friends and allies—or make enemies? What sort of leader was he? How did he make choices and decisions?”(xxi) With the signing of the treaty the guerilla warfare ended in the year 1921. What was the conflict about? Political and social issues were involved. When bitter incidents happen and the reaction of the law-enforcing authorities goes beyond the rules or law, the struggle assumes violent forms. The basic issues are swept under the carpet, and revengeful encounters take place. The Irish unionists did kill the civilians. The unjust oppression of the Catholics in the North was a naked fact. In general, the Irish faced exploitation and intimidation. The reason for the authentic start of the conflict was the Easter Uprising of 1916. That heralded the beginning of the modern national struggle in Ireland. The entire question revolved around the question of securing nationhood for Ireland and security and justice for the Catholic minority in the North. To what extent was the conflict, a British or Irish civil war? The conflict cannot be termed as British/Irish Civil War. Ireland was the colony of the British. It wished to secede from the British Crown, to become a sovereign country. The British were seemingly willing to concede total independence in stages. The delegation headed by Michael Collins, signed an agreement with the British Counterpart, wherein they secured certain concessions, much short of total independence. When the delegation returned home, the agreement was stoutly opposed by Sinn Fein President Eamon de Valera and others. The serious differences ultimately led to Civil War, and resulted in the death of Michael Collins in an ambush laid by the I.R.A. men. Thus, a full-fledged Civil War engulfed Ireland. What were the strategies of the nationalists, and how did they change over time? The nationalist’s fighting force was not big enough or resourceful to fight a conventional war against the British Army or police force. The strategies of the nationalists, led by Collins relate to guerilla type of attacks. Mentioning about the leader of the fighting group, Michael Collins, Hart writes, “Collins, the genius behind the Irish Republican Army’s guerrilla campaign, the inspiration for Begin and Mao. The superspy, who confounded British intelligence. The gun-runner, who bought the first Tommy guns right of the production line. The financial wizard, who bankrolled the Irish revolution from a hundred secret accounts.”(p. xiii) No principles were involved, no war-disciplines were followed and his only objective was to win the war against the British. In the predicament the freedom fighters were placed in, their actions were right. Of course, the fact that Collins developed a group of admirers, who helped him to interact with visiting guerrilla leaders at Vaughan's Hotel, indicates that he was not alone in pursuing the hidden agenda in the cause to secure freedom for the Irish people. The Big Fellow's (Collins) most important eventual antagonist was, of course, his chief, Eamon de Valera, but as argued by Hart that the friendship and understanding of the two blossomed until the treaty with Great Britain divided them once for all. Till then they were supportive to each other and had a workable appreciation and made common cause with the issues. The agents of the Crown intensely shadowed Collins and his men. Secret Service personnel engaged in raids and ambushes in Dublin. The office of Collin’s close associate, General Richard Mulcahy, was raided and they seized IRA plans for violent acts. But Hart justifies Collins stand stating that his unleashing violence was for a noble cause to secure the goal of peace more quickly and decisively. He wanted to secure peace on his terms. The intended peace would not accommodate parties of conflicting interests. Only one side would prevail. Equally important, Collins felt the net tightening around himself and his operatives. Hart notes that the secret service men in Dublin were already involved in raids and ambushes, one of which was in the office of Collins's close associate, General Richard Mulcahy, from which they seized IRA plans for the British half of what was to have been an even more spectacular and bloodier Sunday on November 21, 1920.But if--as Hart maintains--Collins's main purpose in employing violence was to bring about peace more quickly, decisively, and on his own terms, surely it is not a stretch to recognize the validity of the sentiment that it was "them or me." His job as the Secretary to the Irish National Aid and Volunteer Dependent’s Fund helped his cause and the style of his work. That was an association to render assistance to those who suffered for their participation in the rising. He came into touch with individuals, both men and women of similar convictions. With their help, he succeeded in establishing a well-knit underground intelligence network. During the war from 1919 to 1921, his spies had infiltrated Dublin Castle, center of British Administration in Ireland. He organized killings of many senior detectives and staff of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Killing was not his born instinct. But he had no hesitation in ordering killing of those who were obstruction to what he considered as the cause. He did not care for his own life. On November 21, 1920, his Squad executed a dozen British Secret Service agents. He moved with a price on his head. The report about him in the police record was recorded thus: “He is a young man of fair complexion, clean shaven, strong jaws and features. He belongs to a family (of) brainy people who are disloyal and of advanced Sinn Fein sympathies. They are of the farming class.”(Police Report on Michael Collins, 1916)(p.3)The goal of the nationalists was to make Ireland ungovernable and force the British Government to the negotiating table to concede eventual independence. How did the British government respond? As the Director of intelligence in IRA, Collins was instrumental in initiating certain heinous acts. The attack on Crown Secret Service men in their homes was one of them. That triggered Bloody Sunday in November 1920.Hart writes, "Collins is often quoted (perhaps apocryphally) as saying that he had to get them before they got him. In fact it was the other way around ... the hush-hush men did not begin murdering and torturing until after a dozen of them were killed in their homes by the IRA" ( 241). This assertion was not without substance. The Crown had intensified the intelligence operations throughout 1920 and the men worked in small groups with the assigned tasks. Auxiliary Officers throughout the length and breadth of Ireland were on the task of identifying and killing IRA men, its sympathizers and couriers. Why was the British response so incoherent and unsuccessful? The delegation led by Collins, Griffith and other members achieved limited gains in the conference held at London. The British response was reserved. It was not easy for the British Crown to give up the economic interests and century old territorial gains. Dominion status for 26 of the 32 countries with total independence in fiscal matters and domestic affairs was granted. The other condition, an oath of allegiance to the crown, was humiliating. They accepted it under duress, with the hope of winning future gains. A promise to set up the boundary commission was made, to look into the border issues of the States and its proposed reference was vague. The agreement was signed on December 6, 1921. De Valera and the republicans were not willing to accept the terms. A civil war was imminent. In April, members of the Irish Republican army occupied the Four Courts in Dublin. The ruling party-the Irish Free Stage—acted on June 28, and it ordered its troops to shell the Courts and beat back I.R.A. Collins became the Commander of the Free State Army. One month later, his vehicle was ambushed by a few I.R.A. men and Collins was shot dead. How did the conflict end? In December 1921 Irish delegates in London, under the leadership of Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins, signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty. 26 counties were granted limited independence in a newly created Irish Free State, which continued to be the part of the British imperial framework. That sealed the fate of the Irish War of Independence, and papers were signed to mark its official end. But it resulted in the imminent split of the Irish revolutionary movement, Sinn Fein President Eamon de Valera surfacing as the most prominent critic of the deal. But majority of the members of the Union accepted the stand that the Treaty is a step forward to secure full independence. This resulted in a war from 1922-23 and the new Free State was wrecked by a Civil War in the Pro-Treaty group emerged victorious over the Anti-Treaty IRA. Those supporting the cause of Ireland denounced the Irish ‘Freak State’ as a puppet of England. Michael Collins and its other founders were accused of treason. To what extent is military intervention and/or occupation a response to strategic imperatives? The country that intervenes has a justification. Humanitarian intervention is such a broad term; a number of important issues can be covered under this excuse. Pure humanitarian intervention is not bad. Pressing problems of human security, when thousands are killed on the grounds of religion, ethnicity etc it creates resentment with the right thinking nations, though the victims are in a faraway country. It doesn’t take much time for a humanitarian intervention to take the form of military intervention. UN Security Council has to approve such interventions. Many such interventions in the African Countries have been approved. In the final analysis, only the intervening country knows the exact purpose of its actions and how its interests are jeopardized, when a massacre takes place in a distant country. The grounds advanced by US-led coalition forces to attack Iraq, were humanitarian. Yes, massacre did take place there of Muslims belonging to a particular faction. Firstly, such intervention was not demanded by any group of that country. Secondly, it was not an intervention of an ordinary nature, of a few thousands men of peace-keeping force. Around 150,000 ground troops participated in the operation. Massacre of the affected populace did stop. But the American troops clearly arrived to execute a military agenda. A super-power was intervening in an oil-rich country, with great economic potentialities. Iraq was supposed to possess weapons of mass destruction and that was the second reason why USA and the Allied Forces descended on Iraq. But what about the countries that already possess weapons of mass destruction like India, Pakistan, China and many other countries? It was not a difficult issue for a country like US to manipulate the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein, and the issue of weapons could have been dealt with by selective military strikes. USA must have had strategic imperatives for planning invasion on such a mass scale, and for a long duration. Till now, USA is unable to provide the prime justification for the military intervention. President Saddam Hussein is a tyrant by all human standards, agreed. But that doesn’t justify intervention by another country. The intention is not to turn a blind eye to military interventions and term all interventions are bad. Human Rights Groups have advocated humanitarian intervention, to stop ongoing genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Military intervention is like tight rope walking, even when it is said to be on humanitarian grounds. When the military command gets power, the chances of serious abuses cannot be ruled out. Such abuses have taken place in the past. When military intervention takes place without the consent of the concerned government, the abuse is likely to be all the more. In the case of Iraq, military intervention by USA cannot be termed as the response to mass slaughter. Deaths directly caused by the Hussein’s government did not justify military intervention by a third party. It was a serious internal issue between the two contending forces of politics of Iraq. In the 25 years of rule of Baath Party the government was responsible for the murder of 250,000 Iraqis. Saddam retaliated, when he assumed the reins of power. What he did was hundred percent wrong, for example the 1988 Angal genocide, when the Iraqi government slaughtered about 100,000 Kurds. But that was not the justification for the USA military intervention in March 2003, when the killing was marginal. To punish the perpetrators of the crime, through military intervention, is not the assignment of another country. USA must have had other strategic considerations; terrorism could be one of them; oil interests can be another; its strong presence in the Middle East to serve warning to adventurous Muslim countries could also be the part of the strategic consideration. 2) To what extent is restraint in war a result of strategic considerations? Strategic consideration in restraint in war is a matter of interpretation. The real intent may be something else. Military retreats may be for planning for further attacks. Every war, big or small, is fought to achieve a specific goal, and once it is accomplished, it has to stop. Wars are fought for strategic considerations, they stop for strategic considerations, and the lull or restraint in war is also for strategic considerations. If military intervention is by invitation by a country, the huge expenses involved in the deployment will be paid for by that country. That is one aspect. In such a situation, unless the intervening country has its own overall interests to secure, it won’t intervene. For example, in the Bangla Desh war in the year 1971, Pakistan made specific requests to USA for intervention, as its forces were facing imminent defeat. But America showed great restraint, and did not take any military action against India. But for America’s great restraint, the possibility of other Super Powers intervening was real. A great calamity in the Indian sub-continent was thus averted. To USA, the other strategic consideration was to maintain its cordial relations with India, with which it has commercial interests in the form of export/import trade. None of the Super Powers like China, and Soviet Union showed any intervening interest in the Bangla Desh war. Such intervention did not serve their strategic interests. To India, war with Bangla Desh was a necessity. The Bangla leadership appealed to India for help as the Pakistan army indulged in unimaginable atrocities against the Bangla women and the civilian population. Pakistan Army was frustrated and indulged in arson and looting, as it had no support at the grassroots level. India’s concern was a large chunk of Bangla Desh population had begun to cross the Indian borders and the influx was uncontrollable. India’s economy was in jeopardy, as the repeated appeals to check this trend failed. India cannot be expected to support refugees for all time to come. Military intervention was the only option to India and the entire operation was over in less than ten days. The Pakistan command surrendered with 90,000 troops. Once the strategic interest of India was served, and the refugee’s influx stopped, India showed great restraint and brought the war to an end. The newly formed nation, Bangla Desh had no interest in retaining the Indian army, they had no means to pay the huge expenses involved in maintaining the military equipments and neither the troops nor the Indian Government had any strategic interest for retaining the military presence there. Indian forces withdrew to their barracks in India. Restraint in war has also to do with maintaining international relations. The use of force is full of complexities, and maximum restraint needs to be shown. One intervention results in the web of many problems. The language of just war is the difficult one, and the aggrieved parties will be unwilling to accept it. Intervention, if it leads to escalating violence, restraint is the better option. The aim of intervention is of supreme importance. 3. To what extent does military occupation result in strategic commitments that are costly or difficult to meet? Can an ass be turned into a horse? The comparison may be rude, but for perfect understanding of the war situation, this comparison is apt. Let me explain this in more detail in the concluding part of the answer. War theatre is like a formidable fort. To get in is difficult. To get out is more difficult. For example, whatever is the secret agenda, the professed claim of USA for intervention in Afghanistan, is nation-building. To build democratic institutions in Afghanistan, so the country can be governed by the politicians on the democratic lines, when the United States and the Allied forces make up their minds to leave. The best part (in fact the worst part) is, USA has given the time-frame to its military commanders to achieve the objective. Achieving the objective, and achieving it within the time-frame—both are impossibilities, any student of the history of Afghanistan will tell you that. Here I say an ass cannot be turned into a horse; it can be made a clean ass, with all the essential qualities of the ass, not the horse! Will it be ever possible to create a Western-style state in Afghanistan? Can USA convert itself like an African type, Indian type or a Chinese type state? The American may laugh at such a possibility. Similar is the response of Anti-American Muslim populace in and outside Afghanistan, about the dream of USA. Are the American military and political leadership aware, what type of people and society they are dealing with? What is their culture, history, and to be precise their religion—do they possess intimate knowledge of their family set-up and beliefs? America is asking for the moon. Americans will not be able to fulfill the commitments to the present Afghan leadership. We are not aware, what are the arrangements to provide reimbursement of the war expenses between the present Afghan Government and USA. A poor country like Afghanistan, that has gone through several political upheavals in the recent past, and whose economy is in shambles, will not be able to bear the high cost of war. If the American tax payer has to bear this burden that won’t be accepted with pleasure by an average American citizen. With the problems that America is facing with its present alley Pakistan, due to increase in terrorist activities, and the threat posed by Taliban, America has strategic commitments to fulfill for Afghanistan. On the other hand, though USSR is not its enemy, with softening of the stance by it subsequently to dilute of the Communist ideology, America wishes to establish a friendly government in Afghanistan for all time to time, as its location is strategic for USA from the geographical point of view. The stupendous economic growth of China is also viewed with alarm by USA, and it would like to maintain its position as the topmost economic and military power at all times, and it will never be willing to vacate that position. Military occupation may lead to occupational hazards and unimaginable complexities. America never imagined that its military presence will last in Iraq for such a long time. Historical examples do not favor long-term occupation by the military. It does provide selective military occupations that proved successful like that of Germany and Japan. After the World War II, The geopolitical circumstances were entirely different and public opinion favored USA. The original time-line for withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan was 2011. Now the USA administration is talking about the time line for eventual withdrawal of forces by 2014.The strategic commitment has begun to turn costly. The fate of the earlier recent interventions was also the same. Bill Clinton mentioned that US forces will be in Bosnia for 12 months. They stayed there for 9 years. George W. Bush and his advisors proclaimed that occupation of Iraq will be short and the American tax payer need not defray the expenses as it will pay for itself. American forces are still in Iraq. The same is the situation in Afghanistan. America finds it difficult to change course, and staying there for ‘ever’ is more difficult and expensive. Each American soldier killed, is the great psychological burden for America, apart from the expenses involved in maintaining such a huge army and air-power. The lessons are clear now—military intervention by another country cannot contribute to long-term stability in any country. Works Cited Hart, Peter. Mick: The Real Michael Collins; Viking Adult, 1st American Edition:February 16, 2006) Read More