The British Army

[Justin]

Story in the British media today about an SAS man who killed his own sick child claiming manslaughter in his defence brought on by the trauma he experienced in the Iraq war.Hardly an isolated incident of Brits behaving badly and there is a context to such incidents.Britain is a war mongering nation and their army have been involved almost continually in foreign conflicts since WW2 alone.This has necessitated taking young men and training them to be sociopaths and when they have done their job they are unleashed on "civvy st" with all that baggage.If you were to join the dots of all the individuals cases where British soldiers(or American soldiers for that matter) in between conflicts were causing damage to themselves or others you would have a massive and long standing social and political problem.Yet it isn't defined as any kind of problem at all.In contrast the IRA and its members are being presented as something every civilised person should be worried about..you would nearly think the contrast in the process of defining problems as such was highly political and was closely related to who had the most power to do the defining .

[Neutral]

Yeh, but his old army buds probably think that killing his child was a "crime".

[TheBear]

Story in the British media today about an SAS man who killed his own sick child claiming manslaughter in his defence brought on by the trauma he experienced in the Iraq war.Hardly an isolated incident of Brits behaving badly and there is a context to such incidents.Britain is a war mongering nation and their army have been involved almost continually in foreign conflicts since WW2 alone.This has necessitated taking young men and training them to be sociopaths and when they have done their job they are unleashed on "civvy st" with all that baggage.If you were to join the dots of all the individuals cases where British soldiers(or American soldiers for that matter) in between conflicts were causing damage to themselves or others you would have a massive and long standing social and political problem.Yet it isn't defined as any kind of problem at all.In contrast the IRA and its members are being presented as something every civilised person should be worried about..you would nearly think the contrast in the process of defining problems as such was highly political and was closely related to who had the most power to do the defining .

Oh, please!

The existence of the IRA, and other armed illegal organisations, is something to worry about. People should not feel they need to resort to such measures, and even if they feel so desperate, they should exercise restraint and attempt to reform the system from within. You may think this overly idealistic; however, it is more practical, and will ultimately provide a more stable, long-term solution.

The issue of post-traumatic stress disorder is defined as a problem, and has been for almost 100 years. Part of the problem with this syndrome is the failure of the sufferer to recognise their symptoms, or to accept that they have a problem. Treatment cannot be successfully enforced, and requires the co-operation of the patient. Contrary to what you guys seem to think, not everyone can be coerced into everything.

As for Britain's 'almost continual' involvement in foreign conflicts, are you including the North in that description? Also, the vast majority of the British Army's operations over the past 20 years have been humanitarian and peace-keeping in nature. You kick up a fuss when they don't go into Rwanda quick enough, and then b*tch about their excessive militarism when they send their men to stand between warring tribes, between the RUF and civilians, between gangs of Catholic youths and Protestant youths who are throwing bottles at each other. You are probably all going to cry that I've misrepresented the situation in the North, that I've over-simplified matters. How do you know that isn't exactly how the Tutsis are feeling? How the RUF are feeling? Everyone goes on about there being two sides to every story, except when they have a grievance, when they feel hard done by.

In short, grow up! Stop snivelling and accept that the IRA is illegal, does pose a threat to law and order, and that the men who suffer from PTSD have probably done more to secure peace in the world than the republican movement has.

[Libero]

In contrast the IRA and its members are being presented as something every civilised person should be worried about..

I'm one of the sternest critics of SF/IRA on these boards but can recognise that if it wasn't for the division and conflict in Northern Ireland, most members of the IRA would never have been involved in violence or breaking the law (at least, no more so than your average Joe).

When it comes to the trauma inflicted on members of national armies and its consequences on "civvy street", Justin has a good point. But those armies are necessary evils (even if every war they fight isn't). That, I believe, is to be contrasted with the IRA. Even many SF voters now feel that the time is at hand for the IRA to go into retirement. The British/US/<insert country here> Army will always be around creating disturbed and dangerous men but the IRA doesn't have to be.

The worst thing that can happen, from a republican point of view, to the legacy of their struggle is more shameful incidents like that in the Short Strand. If the IRA stands down, then that memory can't be tarnished by criminals acting in its name.

[TheBear]

...Hardly an isolated incident of Brits behaving badly and there is a context to such incidents... If you were to join the dots of all the individuals cases where British soldiers(or American soldiers for that matter) in between conflicts were causing damage to themselves or others you would have a massive and long standing social and political problem.Yet it isn't defined as any kind of problem at all.In contrast the IRA and its members are being presented as something every civilised person should be worried about...

Sorry, there's something else here I want to address:

You say that there is a context to such incidents, and then you go on to entirely deprive it of context in your analysis.

Also, it is deemed to be a major social problem. When five times the number of Falklands' veterans commit suicide, as died during the war, there is something amiss, and somthing needs to be done about it. That is why strategies to deal with PTSD are in place in the British Army.

Oh, and on a side note, I'm sure all IRA volunteers are simply angelic when they come home from a hard campaign at the front, from a long stint in the trenches. They would never foment social disorder or, say, kick someone to death outside a bar!

[Justin]

...Hardly an isolated incident of Brits behaving badly and there is a context to such incidents... If you were to join the dots of all the individuals cases where British soldiers(or American soldiers for that matter) in between conflicts were causing damage to themselves or others you would have a massive and long standing social and political problem.Yet it isn't defined as any kind of problem at all.In contrast the IRA and its members are being presented as something every civilised person should be worried about...

Sorry, there's something else here I want to address:

You say that there is a context to such incidents, and then you go on to entirely deprive it of context in your analysis.

Also, it is deemed to be a major social problem. When five times the number of Falklands' veterans commit suicide, as died during the war, there is something amiss, and somthing needs to be done about it. That is why strategies to deal with PTSD are in place in the British Army.

Oh, and on a side note, I'm sure all IRA volunteers are simply angelic when they come home from a hard campaign at the front, from a long stint in the trenches. They would never foment social disorder or, say, kick someone to death outside a bar!

hmm that's a trick I must remember for future debate...edit out the bit in an argument where it gives context and accuse someone of failing to provide context ..but seriously the post was about miliarism and its effects and the IRA was mentioned by way of contrast.Your replies went into a facile illegal army is bad/legal army is good analysis.Disagree that legal armies off duty are in anyway treated as the problem they should be and the reasons for that are political.Have campaigns for British soldiers not been pulling teeth to get the military and political establishment to recognise PTSD in relation to past conflicts?The problem isn't a British army management one but a more fundamental issue related to the dehumanising effects of militarism.

[Maximilian]

In contrast the IRA and its members are being presented as something every civilised person should be worried about..you would nearly think the contrast in the process of defining problems as such was highly political and was closely related to who had the most power to do the defining .

The difference is that the British army is, for the most part, accountable to the British public whereas the IRA is not, either to the British population, the Northern Irish population or the population of the Republic of Ireland. The British Army is open to reform so as to prevent such cases as you have described if the British public wish it to reform, whereas the IRA is unaccountable to anyone but themselves and that is why people (ought to) worry about them.

[ireland2004]

Open to reform?

Don't talk balderdash, the Murderers of Peter McBride, an 18 year old who moments before he was shot was searched by the soldiers who shot him. They remain in the British army. Lee Clegg is another example of a British soldier who remains in the British army despite his past.

[Maximilian]

Open to reform?

Don't talk balderdash, the Murderers of Peter McBride, an 18 year old who moments before he was shot was searched by the soldiers who shot him. They remain in the British army. Lee Clegg is another example of a British soldier who remains in the British army despite his past.

It is open to reform. Just because the British people do not wish to reform it with respect to the case you mention above is a different argument altogether. The British army is accountable to the British public. The IRA is accountable to no one.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Britain is a war mongering nation and their army have been involved almost continually in foreign conflicts since WW2 alone.

Many members of that army have come from our own shores. Does that make us a war mongering nation by proxy?