@Duke of Marmalade I don't underestimate the sensitivities applicable here so I am trying to be mindful of the language I use, suffice to say, and as
@Purple demonstrates in his following post, that there are many differing narratives.
I'm not endorsing PIRA anymore than I'm endorsing GOIRA - I do not endorse either. I thought it quite clear that I have challenged the GOIRA myth?
They had no formal mandate and they engaged in sectarian muder.
I have come to the sombre conclusion that all of the violence of the last century did not achieve one identifiable success that could not, and would not, have been achieved through constitutional politics over the same period of time anyway. I claim hindsight as my witness.
In your scope of reasoning, there appears at least to be some understanding that at the outset of the Troubles as to why an armed revolt was at least initiated. The prolongation of that strategy is what appears to be the critical factor, combined with the reality of no chance of winning. It is an unfortunate reality of war, that once commenced, there is no defining moment from the outset when it should end.
I refer again to 1916. As I have said before the 20th century is littered with political and sectarian violence. In 1916 some 260 citizens of Dublin lost their lives violently in one week. 1916 had no chance of success, and it that much was known by those who organised and orchestrated it.
Does the fact that it was all over in a week, instead of years, give it some moral justification? If that is your narrative, then I will have to respectfully disagree. Maybe it was because they fought head-to-head with the British? That does holds some honour, but the ensuing defeat was a catalyst for engaging guerilla tactics thereafter.
I have asked, but none has come forward, to point to a (the) time when the political impetus was there to bring about an end to the recent period of violence. Sunningdale was the best effort but fell short in no small part from Unionisms intransigence as much as anything. The policy of internment was still implemented so there was little chance of IRA stopping while that was on-going. Internment only ended in 1975.
The policy of criminalisation was then adopted, culminating in the hunger strikes - at which point, from every perceivable angle trust was at an all-time low.
Censorship, collusion, shoot-to-kill, etc were all policies being applied by the British State overtly and covertly. It is simply inconceivable in my view, to have expected the IRA to unilaterally and unconditionally cease-fire without it have been considered as a surrender in their own quarters - proponents of such a move most likely facing an early grave.
So where was the political impetus to bring the violence to an end?
Contrast with WoI and demands by Llyod George for the IRA to surrender its weapons also fell on deaf ears. It was only when King George applied some pressure to his own government to resolve matters that an invitation to peace talks was forthcoming. Such a invitation was not forthcoming in the Troubles era until 1994.
In 1989 Peter Brooke, acknowledging that the IRA could not be defeated, declared that talks could commence following a cease-fire but failed to follow this up with actual contact. Contact did not begin until 1990 but even then it was all back-door and tentative as trust was non-existent.
I did suggest beforehand that when Gerry Adams was shot in Belfast in 1984 it followed that SF literature contained references to 'peace' and 'peaceful resolution'. When Thatcher was dismissing our Government efforts of political resolution the Brighton bomb attack occurred and within a year she was signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Hume-Adams began in secret a couple of months after Enniskillen atrocity. Hume would be subsequently vilified from all quarters when it became public, including those high up in his own party. It was however, the impetus needed to eventually get to a position to end the violence.
I am not endorsing any of the violent actions above, other than to say if peace was the political imperative, why did it take so long? It wasn't a political imperative, that was the problem, throughout 70's and 80's it was British/Unionist policy to destroy the IRA, and IRA had no inclination but to attack.
Billy Hutchinson, PUP, admits as much saying that the working class Protestants were used by the British elite. Used to prolong the war against the IRA. Catholics were to be targeted to get them to drive out the IRA out of their communities, instead, he admits, they drove them into the bosom of the IRA.
We can look with hindsight and wish things happened sooner, or not at all, but they did and each side has its own narrative to play.
The fact is, democratic and constitutional politics has taken the outright ascendency. Hopefully it will stay that way, but I suspect there is always an underlying threat of intimidation when 50%+1 may not be considered a sufficient majority by some. It is designed to raise fear and the prospect of loyalist violence should Irish people even consider voting, democratically and peacefully, in a particular way for a UI.
You sound like Charlie Lennon. I think our Corporate Tax rate was far more important than the fact we did Irish at Leaving Cert level. Didn't a recent OECD report damn our Leaving Cert system? But let's not go down that rabbit hole.