That's a pretty snappy slogan, actually.

I'd pretty much concur with your analysis, from a mainland based perspective.

Mind you, there's a definite (and horrible) element to me of "playing the waiting game." In essence, both sides had to be convinced that they weren't going to get "total victory" and that came in part only with the passage of time.

That's a horrible thought because I'm suggesting that there wasn't many good ways to reduce the bloodshed.

I'll caveat by saying there were key moments, especially at the beginning, but one or two in the middle that might have been seized by one side or the other to make a difference, but I do feel for much of the middle period both sides were still so swept up in dreams of "total victory" that it's hard to see what could have been done to shorten the conflict.

I should note some extra factors:

1. Not sure how much weight this had, but EU membership for Ireland definitely made a difference. It softened the national distinctions in a crucial way.

2. More weighty, but difficult to assess from my relatively general knowledge is that there was a definite turning point in Irish government attitudes to the pIRA. The pIRA didn't just have broad-based support in the Catholic population of NI and the general population of Eire, they also had an ambiguous relationship with the government of Eire.

I don't have the knowledge to place the position of the Irish government in the relationship on the spectrum between "tacit support," "turning a blind eye" and "being politically unable to do much about them" but it was definitely in there at the beginning. It seemed to shift towards the beginning of the 80s and that seemed to have some slow impact on the pIRA.

So I'd add the notion that you need to engage with any official backers where possible as they can help influence the situation, not with immediate impact perhaps, but over time.

Yes but if our governments began doing the obviously correct thing all of the time, what would we complain about?

All snark aside, I think you are absolutely right but you are neglecting one crucial factor: that terrorism is benefitting the very people in the position to stop it.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

You are right of course.  This is always how it is done, when the desire to stop terrorism is real.  

The Fates are kind.

or you give 'out' to their needs...

and recieve 'in' their transformation into useful members of a society in which they can see a viable future for themselves in-

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

ETA is now officially back at it. It is quite clear what their demands are: "territoriality" [Navarra and the French Basque Country] and "self-determination" [political independence for the "territories"]. I think what they need is "peace with honour": to be able to lay down arms without feeling that they fought in vain, possibly an amnesty for "prisoners with no blood on their hands". In that sense, the Law of Political Parties is preventing them from becoming a political party like so many others did before them (Euzkadiko Ezkerra in the late 1970's, and Aralar in the last decade).

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

I personally blame the right wing pro-unionist cabal in the upper echelons of the British civil, armed and secret services who effectively vetoed the idea of addressing the catholic minorities needs at the beginning of the 70s.

you have to remember that the army went into N Ireland to protect the catholic minority from the unionists. It was whole series of provocations by strangely unidentifiable units of armed service personnel who created the climate of belligerence that enabled the resurgence of the the IRA. You only have to read Peter Wright's Spycatcher and the claims of Colin Wallace about what went on to realise that a lot of unofficial policy at that time was really about defending Unionist superiority.

It was only in the late 80s that justice and equality returned to the debate.

keep to the Fen Causeway

That is so brilliant, Colman, it should go on the wiki under "anti-terrorism policy" and be permanently pasted in front of politicians faces.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

People with submachine guns never make me feel safe.

Seeing them all over airports after 9/11 in the US was spooky, especially considering how [apparently] lax security was before.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

Their weapons are not loaded: their ammo is in a sealed plastic bag and they must write tons of reports is they open one (last I heard about it, could have changed).

It's just more police patrolling around locations with lots of people.