initially featured on The Broken Elbow on 30 January 2014.
Gerard Hodgins’ warning in The Guardian
that advances in surveillance technology render an armed campaign like
that being pursued by dissident republicans impossible in the absence of
popular support and that the various dissident republican groups should
therefore call a ceasefire makes complete sense. So does his implicit
assumption that the dissidents are riddled with informers.
If anything the former IRA activist and hunger striker is probably
understating the technological disadvantages that would be suffered
these days by armed insurgents facing a modern, advanced state foe.
The Provisional IRA’s campaign was probably doomed by these advances
long before the peace process brought it to an end. By the early 1990’s
only South Armagh had withstood significant British intelligence
penetration – it was the reason why all the big blockbuster bombings of
London were organised from there. But one could have predicted that in a
very short time the use of drones, especially miniaturized drones,
would have rendered the area completely vulnerable to British
domination. The British would have been able to spy at will and take out
active service units whenever they wished with devastating consequences
for capability and morale. With that the IRA’s war would truly have
been over.
Hodgins is also right about the role of informers in this story, but this is where it all becomes complicated.
There is no doubt in my mind that in the years before the 1994 IRA
ceasefire, the republican movement was hopelessly undermined by agents
within its ranks. Without compromising any sources I can say with
complete confidence that at this time British intelligence’s own
estimate was that one in three IRA members were working for one or other
branch of Britain’s spying apparatus, either MI5, British military
intelligence or the RUC Special Branch.
So badly infiltrated was the IRA that one could justifiably ask the
question: who was really taking the decisions, the Army Council or the
British government?
Common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of intelligence methods
would tell you that when the IRA split in 1996 and the McKevitt faction
walked out, a very large number of British agents in the mainstream IRA
would have been ordered by their handlers to join the new group and when
the Real IRA itself split, to spread out amongst the various sub-groups
that have multiplied in number since. And once in place the agents
would provide information that could lead to the recruitment of others;
and like an amoeba endlessly dividing soon there would be agents
everywhere inside the dissidents.
Not to have done this would have been egregious incompetence on the part of the British spymasters. This undoubtedly means, as Hodgins suggests, that not only do the
British know all there is to know about the dissidents but that they are
also probably controlling them as well and deciding which directions
they should take.
It is here that the issue of calling a ceasefire becomes problematic.
If, as one is entitled to believe, the British effectively control
the dissident groups why don’t they just edge them towards a ceasefire
and end the violence? Clearly they haven’t done that although they
could. It is now nearly a decade after the St Andrew’s Agreement, over
fifteen years since the Good Friday Agreement, eighteen since the Real
IRA split and twenty since the first IRA ceasefire and still it hasn’t
happened.
So why not? Gerard Hodgins provides one answer himself, which is that
the existence of the dissidents helps Sinn Fein win votes on the basis
that as long as they are kept politically strong, the Provos will act as
a bulwark against returning to the bad old days, something very few
Nationalists want. And dissident violence can also be a helpful
distraction from the perceived disappointments and shortfalls of the
peace process. Surely the British agencies, invested in the process as
they are, would approve.
So strategically, it makes sense for MI5 and military intelligence
(police intelligence seems to be out of the picture these days after the
fall of the Special Branch) to keep the dissidents going: the policy
gives Nationalists a very good reason to vote for the peaceful
republicans and blocks the emergence of political opposition to the
Provos, something that could be far more threatening than dissident
bombs.
There is another more mundane but no less potent obstacle in the way
of a ceasefire and this one exists on the dissident side of the
equation. If British intelligence has penetrated these groups to
anything like the extent they did with the Provos then there are an
awful lot of these guys picking up a weekly pay check for doing
something that is probably not all that dangerous.
In the days of the Provisional IRA, the British made sure that they
had an excess of agents inside the Internal Security Unit which had the
task of hunting down British spies. That way they would know if the IRA
was on to any of their agents and take appropriate action, such as
ensuring that someone else was blamed. They have probably done the same
with the dissidents, assuming any of them have even bothered creating
spycatcher units. Anyway the informer in the ranks can be pretty sure
that one way or another, MI5 has his or her back.
So if you are picking up a nice sum of money for doing something that
is not terribly dangerous and can often be quite exciting and you get
to meet people who regard you as being important, would you want to give
it all up, especially when the alternative would be living as a nobody
with no money and no status in Ardoyne or Ballymurphy? I don’t think so.
Ed Moloney with a piece assessing some of the views expressed by Gerard Hodgins in the Guardian. It
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ed
ReplyDeleteGood piece and well thought out. Not only does it make sense that informers would have been instructed to follow the 'hawks' during the early stages of the cease-fire for the reasons you suggest but securocrats job security is dependent upon maintaining the fear factor. It is a very lucrative buisness where the informers are low on the pay scale.
I would not believe Intel estimates of 3:1 ratio. Whilst a large number of IRA volunteers 'broke' in places like Castlereagh the overwhelming majority of them only named themselves and often claimed to have carried out operations they had no part in. A number of them explained to me that they did so because they were 'going down anyway' so they in some way were taking the attention of someone still at large. Another way to look at it is by level of the dedication shown throughout the rank and file throughout the whole campaign, one third seems an excessively high number of 'undedicated' people, people like Denis Donaldson and Scap are the rarity rather than the norm; and that is not to say that others like them are still in place.
Given the level of control the British had they probably were able to manipulate people 'into' or 'out of' various positions as best suited their own purposes which would negate need for such a high ratio of informers. There is a good polish movie (bit dull) but very poignant to NI that deals with informants during the Polish Miners Strikes, see: 'Kret' (The Mole) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1994537/
They also recruited a type of informant whose value was to be shot dead as a 'tout' thus giving a false security impression within the rank and file. One such example of a 'tout' recruited to be killed would be Chris Harte from Belfast, where it was common knowledge and topical conversation among prisoners in Crumlin Road Jail why the charges against him were suddenly dropped. My understanding is that IRA staff at the time had sent word out that he had been 'turned'. Whoever made the decision to allow him to become involved again was an agent or taking direct advice from one and probably more closely involved with how IRA Vol. Pierce Jordan was killed than Chris Harte was.
The 3:1 ratio might more accurately depict Loyalist recruitment. I often, exaggeratedly, would considered that Loyalist Paramilitaries recruited exclusively from security force ranks of informants.
Tiarna a cara its difficult to get ones head around the 3:1 ratio of informer infiltration,I,d bet that this may be the case in the higher echelons of the movement,the foot soldiers of the movement were a genuine inspiration.I think the reason why we are witnessing a small low key campaign is as clear as day ,its being controlled by those who have most to gain from any so called terrorist threat and that is the well paid boys and girls from the security services and ancillary staff.it stands to reason that if peace and I mean true peace were ever to take hold here then the outcome would be that those wasters in Stormont and their cronies would become part of the great unwashed,and mi5 would have a hard job explaining its vast budget never mind its raison d,etre, so a cara it appears to me anyway that it all boils down to money at the end of the day .thats why I honestly believe that genuine republicans need to refuse to be bit players in this scam. .
ReplyDeleteIf one in every three are informers ratio is 2:1 (just to be pedant)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Moloney's observation that: "not only do the British know all there is to know about the dissidents but... they are also probably controlling them as well and deciding which directions they should take."
ReplyDeleteHis closing comment: "So if you are picking up a nice sum of money for doing something that is not terribly dangerous and can often be quite exciting and you get to meet people who regard you as being important, would you want to give it all up, especially when the alternative would be living as a nobody with no money and no status in Ardoyne or Ballymurphy? I don’t think so." I believe is revealing. Coming from a man who resides in New York, enjoying the society of pundits and the plaudits of American Irish achievers, I'd say it is a question he might well address to himself.
Without compromising any sources I can say with complete confidence that at this time British intelligence’s own estimate was that one in three IRA members were working for one or other branch of Britain’s spying apparatus, either MI5, British military intelligence or the RUC Special Branch.
ReplyDeleteEd
Why can you not compromise your sources? This is why this whole rotten business is so destructive.
It is as if you and other 'insiders' believe you have the right to pull other peoples chains without producing a shred of evidence. To be blunt those days are gone and good riddance.
It is not as if you are talking about yesterday and peoples lives, or even careers were on the line. One can only presume your source was part of the British state machine. But you do not even tell us that, nor why we should believe them, let alone why they should be able to enjoy their retirement.
Of course the PIRA were infiltrated they were at it for three decades, how could it be otherwise. It was integral weakness of Adams long war strategy.
But to say one in every three volunteers was controlled by the security services, police and army intel is I would suggest ridiculous. Why would they want to control that many volunteers, it would be recipe for disaster. After all their aim was not to create their very own benefits street.
At a push the police might use low level informers in that way, but as we know from Donaldson and Scap the British state security eventually became quite sophisticated when it came to running touts and agents of influence.
The 1 in 3 stuff sounds like the kind of thing the head of Mi5 might tell government ministers to keep the gravy on tap.
I do not wish to be rude but you cannot throw that statistic into the pot and not give us a clue about the source.
when u think the nutter squad were always a ratio of 3:3, the council probably 3:2 at times anyway, the ghq is your guess, so it doesnt matter if there were only a few 'vol' touts out of all of the volunteers, they've had us sown up for decades and the sad thing is the present day mils are even more riddled. they are fu*ked.
ReplyDeleteconeyeye, theres plenty i'd say in ballymurphy and ardoyne who think moloney is bang on with that comment. wasnt for the likes of him i wouldnt hav copped on for a long time about the ruthless cynical control freaks and collaborators who took over the movement, if i lived in new york id be on the razz constantly.
All those listening devices they secreted everywhere must only be picking up all the touts talking to eachother (sarcasm intended)
ReplyDeleteDaithiD said...
ReplyDeleteAll those listening devices they secreted everywhere..
They been there for a while...Vengeful & Crucible (scroll down...)
A telephone caller from yesterdays (31/01/14) Nolan show. Fastfoward the show until 1hr 13mins 29sec...
ReplyDeleteHe's a former IRA vol, from Ballymurphy and give his opinions..
Frankie,
ReplyDeleteI don't know who the guy from the Murph is and seemingly he does not do too many interviews. But maybe after he listens to himself he will do a lot more. That was a very impressive interview from somebody trying to think through the problems rather than spouting party lines of whatever hue.
Organized Rage,
ReplyDelete'.. to say one in every three volunteers was controlled by the security services, police and army intel is I would suggest ridiculous.'
There remains little doubt as to the extent to which the combined security agencies had infiltrated all of the paramilitary organisations and maneuvered each towards their terminai. This appears to be a matter of acceptance for many rather than there being an absence of evidence or a requirement for the identity of sources to substantiate the matter.
If one considers 124, Carrigart Ave, Finnucane and Operation Ballast, Ed Moloney's ratio is not only corrobarated but may be a conservative figure.
Organized Rage,
ReplyDeleteI get your point about Ed not revealing a source though if Ed is receiving information would he not be cutting his own nose to spite his face by revealing the source?
One fact that doesn’t need clarification is that MI5 waged an extremely successful infiltration of all the Para-militaries.
The high volume of prisoners might attest to that fact in the beginning it may well have been a low level of infiltration which would follow a natural path of almost predictable potential agents.
That is the business they are in Military Intelligence counter insurgency and it is something they have a healthy proven record of doing.
It would be difficult to give an accurate estimation of their infiltration of PIRA/INLA given the ebb and flow or what had run its course and what was still viable.
I would agree with Robert that Ed’s figures might be conservative as we leave out the possibility of sympathetic supporters being enlisted to keep tabs on their neighbours or specific people so the number could be possibly higher.
By the 80s the network of agents would be from high ranking to low level the big question mark over who were the informers and who were the scapegoats executed as informers is very shaky ground.
The various agencies would have no problem with setting up a dummy informer to protect their real sources and this tactic paid in dividend.
Back then the Brits would have played down the role of informers and the media would give credit to the RUC for doing such a decent job of rounding up suspects.
Whichever estimate or guesstimate we go by one thing is for certain the peace process was implemented but MI5 and its unfinished business without doubt carried on infiltrating the dissidents and the loyalist paramilitaries.
It could be argued that it was so successful that the PIRA/INLA command decided to cut their losses and followed SF to the table.
The MI5 barrack is supposedly staffed by around 300 I would say that is a dummy figure and guess the number is much higher only as they are so successful and have the upper hand in heading militants of most of the time before they get anywhere near the pass.
Even if we lower the possible number in the long run it didn’t matter as it certainly helped steer the RM to the table.
Mackers
ReplyDeleteListened to that interview and trying to think of who Anthony might be and the only person I could come up with was Tony Gillen/Gill.
Robert
ReplyDelete"If one considers 124, Carrigart Ave, Finnucane and Operation Ballast, Ed Moloney's ratio is not only corrobarated but may be a conservative figure."
Do you know what corroboration means? Ed's assertion is based upon speculation and uncorroborated secret source and securocrats, not exactly hard empirical evidence.
The IRA was sufficiently infiltrated but no way by such a high ratio. It matters nothing to me if there was a 3:1 ratio but just because the Brits say so is not a reliable source, they are not a neutral party without an interest. More paranoid IRA members might speculate one figure and others a different figure but the only 'statistics' (which are not definitive in themselves) are the percentages of men who broke under interrogation and while some may have kept secrets when being 'debriefed' one in 3 did not become informants. Then a fewer number of people never broke and again it would be an exaggeration to say that 1:3 of those people turned informer. Then we can perhaps consider the different regions and different type of IRA units some areas/units could more easily be infiltrated than others but again on a balance of probabilities the overall ratio was still unlikely to be 3:1 even if one unit had as many as 5 informers whereas others had none.
ReplyDeleteTiarna,
'Ed's assertion is based upon speculation and uncorroborated secret source and securocrats, not exactly hard empirical evidence.'
One wonders why you did'nt express that opinion to Ed instead of commending his piece as being,'Good and well thought out.'?
Ed Moloney has added much to our knowledge of the Provisional IRA , both as an award winning journalist and as a best selling author. His career has been built on unrivalled access to sources within all parties to the conflict. When he speaks we can take it as a given that he does so with a reputation for authorative reliability.
Robert
ReplyDeleteIt is a well written piece, thought provoking and as you say comes from a well respected journalist -that still does not in itself make it factually true. Tolkien and Terry Pratchett have each written some very well thought out novels but not a bit of them were true.
Ed repeats security source claims that there was a 1:3 ratio, he did not compile the statistics nor verify from a long list of IRA members where one in three names was ticked as an informer? One modest calculation can be done --say for every year of the conflict the IRA had an average of 200 members per year. That would give us approx 3000 where 1000 would have been informers according to ED. Now consider the low numbers actually uncovered (and it is now commonly known that all of them were not actually informers). That sets an unrealistically high figure that escaped detection. If we examine the real informers that have been exposed they were in place for years and in some cases for decades. After only a few years the make up would have become 1:1 ratio. With a success rate like that that would mean that a lot of above average intelligent people became informers and could outsmart a disproportionately higher number of people. Like I say the Brits had sufficient number of informers not a disproportionate number as Ed asserts, and I think Ed should not repeat as gospel that which he cannot stand over.
The IRA conducted a detailed and painstaking survey of all POW's covering circumstances of arrest, interrogations, co-accused, charges, and a lot of other pertinent questions. The results are pretty informative, and since the ceasefire releases in 1998 all that data ended up somewhere and Ed does not have it.
Tiarna,
ReplyDelete'Tolkien and Terry Pratchett have each written some very well thought out novels but not a bit of them were true.'
Ed Moloney is not a novelist. He is credited with having authored the definitive history of the IRA. Moreover he is sympathetic to Republicanism and no friend of the intelligence establishment. Your rebuttal would be greatly enhanced by citing instances where he has made untruthful claims or been used as a conduit to convey propaganda. It would be informative to learn why Ed might be mistaken or is lying about this or why and when British interests ceased being served in sustaining Sinn Fein by suppressing this type of information. I am open to persuasion on this but critical analysis without the analysis contains little to be considered or persuaded by.
I think there is an emotional and defensive element to your commentary that betrays a failure to discern the nature of the recruitment, management and extent of covert assets operating within the IRA.
'..the only 'statistics' (which are not definitive in themselves) are the percentages of men who broke under interrogation
This suggests that the process of turning people was conducted solely upon those who were arrested ? Does it account for those recruited by FRU or MI5 or for example 'walk ins'?
'Now consider the low numbers actually uncovered'
How could we not! As Chesterton paradoxically observed, 'spies don't look like spies. Perhaps what compelled the Provos more than anything else to establish a dedicated unit to sniffing and snuffing them out. I suspect had Ed told us that the head of that unit and his 2IC were agents you would be in a position to attest with equal confidence that,'Ed should not repeat as gospel that which he cannot stand over.'
'The IRA conducted a detailed and painstaking survey of all POW,s'..'
Is it not logical to assume that the majority of agents remained outside? In any event, they might as well have threw shite at the moon in relation to the extent that their organisation was comprised of agents if the survey did'nt ask the respondants the specific question if they were agents and they failed to answer honestly.
Robert
ReplyDeleteNowhere do I suggest that Ed is dishonest, lying, untruthful or generally a walter mitty. My point of referring to tolkien and pratchett was that no matter the genre or professional quality of writing it can be well thought out without being factual. I wrote that because you questioned how I could disagree with Ed while at the same time praising his piece as well thought out.
I am emotional? rather than accept Ed regurgitating security forces claims of huge numbers of informers I say they had sufficient numbers but not a disproportionate 1:3 ratio as they, and ed, claim. It would make no difference to me if they had 1:3 ratio it is not emotional to say that there is no evidence to support Ed's claim other than a little birdy told him so.
Yes I made allowance for Fru and walk-ins (re: why I qualified the numbers who broke as not being definitive)
Chesterton's paradox is cute but I was not looking at or considering physical attributes or fashion sense of individuals to define informers/spies. Actions, group formations, subjective and objective trends etc. over periods of time show patterns and margins.
The point of surveying POW's is because trends can show up, especially where they identify certain cops or practices conducting interrogations, or where particular individuals repeatedly crop up when people are asked to turn. And POW's are a convenient and safe group to survey as the damage is done if they are in jail.
The only thing Ed has added to our knowledge is that somebody in the security forces told him that there was a 1:3 ratio of informers and he repeated it here --that does not make it true; Nor does praise for his journalistic skills.
One question arises, I presume if Ronnie Flannagan or Derek Martindale said that they had great success recruiting informers in that rather than stop at sufficient amount they went all the way to recruiting 1/3 of the whole IRA membership, you would probably either not believe it or be skeptical because they have an interest to play themselves up. Way does ed repeating such a claim make it more credible and factual?