Comparing al Qaeda and the IRA
Al Qaeda played all out, spent all its assets in a few years. In my dumb-ass 2005 article, I called the Al Qaeda method "real war" and the IRA's slow-perc campaign "nerf war." That was ignorance talking, boyish war-loving ignorance. I wanted more action, that was all. I saw what an easy target the London transport system made for a few amateur Al Qaeda recruits and just thought that since the IRA had several long-term sleeper teams in place in London, they could have wreaked a million times more havoc. Which was true, they could've. But could've and should've are different things, and a guerrilla group that goes all-out, does everything it can, is doomed.
That's amazing; I've never heard of anything like that. It shows how far they'd come by that stage, away from the simple Al Qaeda maximum-blood crap I bought into in that earlier article. In contemporary urban guerrilla warfare, at least in Western Europe, killing civvies is counterproductive. What you want to do, what the IRA had mastered by the 1990s, was messing with the incredibly fragile and expensive networks that keep a huge city going. Interrupt them and you cost the enemy billions of dollars, and they don't even have any gory corpses to shake in your faces. Fucking brilliant, and I was too dumb to see it!
It's hard for an American to get your head around any of this, but the point, and it's very "counter-intuitive" as they say, is that Al Qaeda did everything wrong, spending all their assets and going for maximum kill, and the IRA, the poster-boy for long, slow, crock-pot guerrilla warfare, did it exactly right.
Posted on July 7, 2011 at 6:36 AM • 67 Comments