The Story of Tony Doris

Kevin Toolis starts the second chapter of his book Rebel Hearts with the story of Tony Doris, an IRA member killed in an SAS (Special Air Service, defined by Toolis as “a small but elite unit of the British Army that specialized in the ambush and assassination of IRA men on active service”) ambush in 1991.

Toolis, a proclaimed Republican, admits, “Tony was a killer” (49). However, the undeniably view of this book is that Tony Doris was a hero. To use Doris’s words, “Tony was judged to be a republican terrorist, a gunman intent on sectarian massacre. But to his friends, family, and the community in Meenagh Park, Tony was not an aggressor, not a terrorist killer, but their defender” (49). He was defending them from the constant harassment that the Catholics (those suspected to be in the IRA or not) in Meenagh Park receive from the armed UDR (Ulster Defense Regiment).

Now Toolis has a definite bias, which he has stated outright, so thus, I know I must be weary of his claims. However, the atmosphere of Northern Ireland as Toolis describes it (with armed British army men carrying around and pointing guns before asking questions, interrogating Catholic schoolchildren), sounds quite brutal to say the least. When asked, Doris’s family could not explain why he joined. “In their minds, the mere description of life in Coalisland was sufficient to explain why Tony had joined the IRA.” I found this fact quite interesting. That it’s a no-brainer for some of the Catholics of Northern Ireland to join the IRA, what seems to be universally condemned as a terrorist organization. However, after reading just part of Toolis’s book, I feel like I am beginning to understand the mindset of these people.

This mindset revolves largely around the history of the issue. Toolis points out, “In other countries and in other lands, history happens and then dies…in Ireland, history does not die” (36). This seems incredibly true. The fact that many Irishmen can recall how the English pushed them off their land, forced them onto the worst bits of real estate in the country, and essentially damned them and their ancestors to lives of poverty are sources of much anger amongst the Irish people. Couple this with the way that Toolis describes the Northern Ireland of the 1980/1990s, and it makes for some understandably irate Irishmen.

However, while Toolis’s bias is clear, I do believe he brings up a good point when it comes to the Ulster Volunteer Force. The UVF is an illegal Protestant paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. Unlike the IRA, they are never brought in for questioning, convicted of murder, raided, or jailed. Daniel McShane, a friend of Tony Doris, claims, “The UVF go out to intentionally shoot innocent people. The IRA intentionally go out to pick on the British Government…There are casualties in all wars but the IRA do not mean to have innocent casualties” (50). Obviously, this can be debated. However, it seems to me the UVF commit largely the same crimes as the IRA, but are not punished. The reasons for this are quite obvious. But the fact that the world doesn't condemn them like they do the IRA seems like an outrageous double standard.

I shall leave you with this final thought to chew on. A few weeks after the death of Tony Doris, a mock St. Valentine’s Day card was dropped onto the family’s front garden by British soldiers. It read: “Tony loves the SAS. From Her Majesty’s Forces. May you rot in hell Tony. Ha, Ha, Ha!” (39).

"Nothing Gold Can Stay": The Decline of the West & Rise of the Rest

In this new globalizing world, many Americans are scared that their time of dominance has ended. Both Kishore Mahbubani and Tony Judt agree on this. The Rise of the Rest seems imminent. In Mr. Judt’s article, What Have We Learned, if Anything, he critiques the West for, on the most basic level, forgetting the lessons of the twentieth century. In The Case Against the West, Mr. Mahbubani, however, attacks the West, claiming that it is both an incompetent player in global affairs and the cause of many—the way he puts it, it seems to be all—of the world’s problems.

As an American, it is hard to read Mr. Mahbubani’s article and not get angry. In the beginning, he asserts that “the West assumes that it is the source of the solutions to the world’s key problems. In fact, however, the West is also a major source of these problems” by its mishandling of global affairs, some of his examples being the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, and Israel, to be precise), global warming, and the economic crisis. He, then, asserts that Asia will replace the US as the head of the world (but then contradicts himself to say that Asia merely wants to be partners with the West, not overtake them, but that is neither here nor there.)

I have a few problems with this article. The first is the claim that China has become a “‘responsible stakeholder’ in the international system.” For an incredibly long time, China has been artificially depreciating its currency in order to make its exports more competitive on a global market. This comes as an advantage for China at the cost of, well, everyone else. Similarly, when Mr. Mahbubani claims that “the demise of a round table negotiation, the Doha Round,” is because of the West’s mismanagement of worldly affairs, he conviently overlooks the fact that China has also played its part in the demise. Thus, I find his claim that China has become a responsible stakeholder quite misleading.

My second issue with Mr. Mahbubani is his blatant anti-American, pro-Asian bias. Yes, everyone has their opinion, and Mr. Mahbubani should be allowed to express his. However, I find that this prejudice creates a misleading argument, one of the few examples being the one above.

My final issue is simply that he blames global problems almost solely on the West. Yes, America has surely messed some things up. Vietnam, Iraq, torture at Guantanamo, I get it. We have done some bad things. But to place the blame for all of the world’s problems on the US seems absurd for two reasons. 1. We can only do so much. We facilitate peace talks. We try. But when it comes down to it, the people of that region are the ones who have to put the suggestions of the peace talks into action. Not us. 2. Mr. Mahbubani claims that Asia is going to dominate the world and thus, take over the responsibilities of the West as the global mediator. Would China be able to settle the conflict in Palestine more effectively than the US?

Mr. Judt’s article, on the other hand, I find to be particularly accurate. His question of “What have we learned, if anything?” I believe is an important one to ask. I would agree with Mr. Judt that we have not learned much from the twentieth century. This is evident in our glorification of war and criticism of pacifism as a cowardly option. The US now uses torture, something, as Mr. Judt points out, once reserved solely for dictatorships like Soviet Russia. Finally, there is an anti-Islam wave sweeping through the nation, (of course, it has not hit everyone). The fairly recent Qur’an burnings make this abundantly clear. From all of these points, especially the last two, I would conclude the same things that Mr. Judt does. Americans have forgotten (or never learned) both the horrors of war and the horrible things that happen when you dehumanize your enemy.