Republicans and Al Quaeda

Al-Qaeda and the IRA – does terrorism work?

(by Suzanne Breen, Sunday Tribune)

Six years after 9/11, is al-Qaeda any closer to achieving its aims? Suzanne Breen, Northern Editor, talks to former IRA members about the organisation's strategy and success.

Usually we look at political violence by guerrilla groups emotionally. But leaving aside the moral context, is terrorism a successful strategy? Until al-Qaeda, the majority of guerrilla organisations have chosen military or economic targets. While many terrorist attacks have led to civilian deaths, this was generally not the primary aim. Does al-Qaeda's ruthlessness help or hinder its chances of victory? And how do ex-IRA members strategically view the campaign by al-Qaeda and other jihadist and Palestinian groups?

Tommy Gorman is a veteran west Belfast IRA man who escaped from the internment ship, the Maidstone, in 1972. "In propaganda terms, 9/11 was a success," he says. "It politicised Muslims across the world and it made people like me read about their situation and how they're treated like a pile of shite.

"The Madrid bombing led the Spanish people to throw out a government which supported the US in Iraq. If a bomb exploded in Dublin, because of Shannon's role in bolstering the US war effort in Iraq, then Ireland would be like Spain. We'd not rally behind the Stars and Stripes. We'd tell the government to expel the American planes.

"If we want to avoid attack, we should be lobbying the government now and down in Shannon wrecking planes." Gorman views Islamic insurgents as "more committed and ruthless" than republicans ever were.

"That's because the situation in the Middle East is a million times worse than anything we went through. Our occupation by the British was nothing in comparison. It was wee buns for us here. Gaza is just one big refugee camp. Palestinians are allowed to use only certain roads; there is absolute poverty. That leads them to use more extreme measures than we did.

"These groups make a formidable foe because of the use of suicide bombers. Us watery IRA people would never have strapped ourselves to explosives. In comparison to the actions of Islamic groups, the war in the North was a minor skirmish. It failed because people weren't serious enough. We didn't get down in the gutter where the Brits go in their wars. We pussy-footed about too much."

Richard O'Rawe, the IRA's second-in-command in the H-Blocks in the 1980s, is writing a book on al-Qaeda: "They are totally different from anything we have seen. They believe the end justifies any means. I find their tactics morally abominable but strategically I don't think they can be defeated.

"The IRA fought a western type war; these guys biggest strength is that they moved terrorism onto a different plane. 9/11 was a horrific spectacle. Since then, they've been less effective. From their own perspective, they need to up the ante again – to kill thousands, not hundreds, and that probably involves the use of nuclear weapons."

Al-Qaeda claims to have bought suitcase nuclear bombs from former Soviet Union scientists. Such devices could kill tens of thousands if detonated in a city, and hundreds of thousands would die from radiation exposure within two years.

Al-Qaeda's boasts have been dismissed in some quarters but have been supported by Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking defector from Russia's GRU intelligence service. Congressman Christopher Shays, chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, has repeatedly warned that up to 60 nuclear briefcases were stolen from the former Soviet Union.

If al-Qaeda employed such devices, it would be "a frighteningly powerful step", O'Rawe says: "What would the West do? If it retaliated with a nuclear attack, that would alienate moderate Muslims, turning the whole thing into an East-West conflict, and making it 10 times worse. Unlike the IRA, al-Qaeda doesn't care who it alienates by its actions so there are no restraints."

O'Rawe says al-Qaeda dwarfs other 21st century armed groups: "The dissident republican campaign here is a joke by comparison – a rain-drop in a force five hurricane." O'Rawe believes al-Qaeda's ideological inflexibility makes it a particularly tough opponent: "Sinn Féin leaders were driven by electoral success and achieving personal positions of power. They were content to end the IRA campaign without achieving their original objectives.

"Al-Qaeda leaders aren't interested in that. Ideological goals are all that's important to them which makes them very difficult to defeat. I don't believe the Americans can win this. The US is developing its own bio-fuels to free it from dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Once that happens, the US will just pull out of the Middle East and go isolationist."

Former IRA prisoner, Anthony McIntyre, describes al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents as "fascists who represent a massive threat to civilisation". But he also believes their ideological commitment is their greatest strength. "George Orwell said 'nine times out of ten a revolutionary is just a social climber with a bomb in his pocket'.

"It was true of the Sinn Féin leadership which meant they were open to negotiate a deal which didn't lead to a British withdrawal and securing republican goals. The al-Qaeda leadership is entirely different. The British never tried to kill the IRA leadership – indeed Gerry Adams life was saved by the security forces. The British allowed the same IRA leadership to stay in place for 30 years because they knew they were willing to eventually compromise.

"The West knows that Al-Qaeda leaders will never become moderates which is why so many of them have been arrested or assassinated." However, McIntyre does not believe that al-Qaeda will be ultimately successful: "If the level of attacks were such that Western society was destabilised, there wouldn't be any US withdrawal from the Middle East. The West would just nuke Mecca."

Ex-IRA member and hunger-striker Marian Price, jailed for the 1973 Old Bailey bombings with Gerry Kelly, believes al-Qaeda and other Islamic fighters have been successful: "They have the Americans on the run.

"Their greatest strength is their culture and psychology. Before going out on an operation, an IRA volunteer always talked of the 'runback' – how we'd escape and where we'd go. Of course, there were risks but we all still thought we were coming back.

"Muslims are going out knowing they are not coming back and they are happy about that. Even as Catholics who believed in an afterlife, IRA volunteers never embraced death. On hunger-strike you were prepared to die but your attitude was 'I might die but I hope and believe the other side will blink first'.

"Islamic fighters' different attitudes make them far harder to counter. How can you defeat an enemy who doesn't fear death? The Americans dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 because the Japanese don't fear death. They prefer it to dishonour. They'll fight to the last man even if they won't survive."

Would Price have been prepared to become a suicide bomber, strapping explosives to herself and walking into a room full of British cabinet ministers?: "If I'd been asked, I'd have thought about it." In comparison to Islamic groups, the IRA's mentality was "too soft", she says.

"In 1972, an Israeli-American journalist told me the IRA would never force a British withdrawal because we were fighting a gentleman's war. We were trying to play cricket with the Brits. We weren't ruthless enough but all that's changed with Islamic fighters which is why they're more likely to succeed.

"The Irish people weren't suited to a long war. It should have been a short, sharp war. The long war suited the enemy. A British soldier's tour of duty was three months. Then they'd go home and get rested. An IRA volunteer was at it 24/7 for their entire life. They became exhausted and that led to carelessness. When you're careless you get killed or caught.

"The IRA was drawing on a small pool of people in the North, the same families bore the brunt, and after three decades they became war-weary. Al-Qaeda is in a stronger position because it's got a global pool of tens of thousands of potential recruits."

Price believes the weakening of al-Qaeda's central command structure, after it was driven from Afghanistan, could strengthen it. "The decentralisation of power in the IRA in the early 70s, when all areas were largely able to do their own thing, had many advantages. It lessened the damage done by infiltration."

Price says the tolerance of Islamic fighters' support base for civilian casualties means they can develop their campaign more ruthlessly than previous armed groups. "Sanctions killed one million Iraqis, including 600,000 children who couldn't get basic medicines. Suffering like that leads to a different attitude to life and death and a different attitude to 3,000 people being killed on 9/11.

"Death or injury to civilians was always accidental during the IRA campaign. Never once did anyone ever say, 'If we kill civilians in London, wouldn't it have a great impact on the Brits?' It was pumped into ever IRA volunteer to avoid civilian casualties at all costs, even the cost of your own life.

"Republicans operated with far more constraints than al-Qaeda. The IRA was condemned from the pulpit countless times by priests. Very few in the congregation walked out. Since the child abuse scandals, less people would listen to the church but in the 70s and 80s it was very different. Al-Qaeda operates which such social restraints."

Price believes al-Qaeda benefits from a hardline, uncompromising leadership: "Osama Bin Laden is a very wealthy man who has given it all up to live in a cave and fight his war. What a complete contrast to Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA leaders who softened position after acquiring holiday homes in Donegal or a few Portuguese apartments. They were bought off very cheaply.

"Those who tried to blow up Glasgow airport this summer were doctors, people for whom the Western dream had come true – a high salary and a nice life. They didn't have to get involved but they did which means they've made a huge commitment."

Liam O Ruairc, a republican writer, believes that despite their high-profile nature, al-Qaeda's bombings have achieved nothing and the organisation is doomed to failure: "All their attacks do is cause racism against ethnic minorities living in the targeted area. If they bombed Ireland because of Shannon, it would create a wave of super-patriotism here People would rally behind America and damn the bombers as bastards.

"By bombing England, they'd fare no better. Al-Qaeda's craziness works against it. People wouldn't accept that if the British government changed its foreign policy, the attacks would end. They would realise that al-Qaeda wouldn't be happy with driving the West out of the Middle East, they'd then want independent Muslim enclaves in London, Birmingham and elsewhere. Al-Qaeda's attacks on Western civilian targets won't succeed."

Eamonn, an ex-IRA volunteer from Belfast, disagrees: "Killing civilians worked at Drogheda and Wexford when Cromwell slaughtered 5,000 men, women and children.

It worked when 300,000 were killed by American atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It worked when America let General Suharto kill one million Indonesians. It can work for al-Qaeda and others."

September 11 represented terrorism "getting serious", Eamonn says: "The attitude was 'if you're going to do, do it right'. There was none of this arsing around, like some republicans still do – leaving a pipe bomb at the bottom of a policeman's gate or planting a hoax device on a railway-line to stop one train for one day. 9/11 puts that Mickey Mouse stuff in perspective.

"No matter what you think of it morally, an organisation targeting civilians is logical. Westerners keep voting for governments which carry out terrorism in other people's countries. Those countries are usually weaker with no chance of beating the foreign army.

"Attacking a civilian population is simply a tactic – a way of getting a country to say 'Stop!' to their government." Madrid might be different but bombing the US and Britain hasn't led to extensive lobbying for foreign policy changes. Eamonn claims al-Qaeda's campaign is weakened by the irregularity of the attacks: "To stand a chance of achieving its goals, al-Qaeda would need to be bombarding American and British cities.

"Planting 10 1lb bombs packed with shrapnel outside English football grounds at 2.40pm on a Saturday, rigging up stand-pipes in big cities and poisoning the water supply, letting gas go in cinemas or theatres. That would create a climate of fear and people would soon be ordering their governments to keep out of other people's countries. People might find what I'm saying morally repugnant, but it's reality."

From a strategic point of view, Eamonn says al-Qaeda has sometimes picked 'wrong' targets. "Bombing Bali to try to influence Australia which had taken part in the invasion of Iraq was pointless. John Howard was still re-elected. Bali was too peripheral. Targeting mainland Australia would have been far more effective."

Similarly, Eamonn sees little reason for Palestinian groups to focus their assaults on Israel: "The Israelis will not give in while the US continues to bankroll them with billions of dollars. In terms of military strategy, it would make more sense for the Palestinians to hit the US."