man, what’s with the george bush thing? as you say his war was unpopular in four years, having started with high ratings. ours has been on for 25-30, which gives plenty of time for plummeting of popularity, intsead of which approval ratings have gone way in the opposite direction. what you do not seem to get is the difference between a war fought overseas against a country which did nothing against one’s own , and a war fought internally against an enemy who sets off bombs in one’s towns and wants to carve out a piece of your territory, from within your own internationally recognised boundaries.

since you can’t get that basic difference, its a waste of my darn time – in fact anybody’s darn time– debating you.

When you say, “look, let us all be realistic” (as if we are not and only you are) or, “look, here is the logic” (as if we don’t understand logic) you sound more and more like a used car salesman, trying to sell an outdated, gas guzzling jalopy to people who know all about cars.

Regarding Obama’s position, you seem to be looking for sound bites. Read his many speeches and figure out what his position is on SL. You know his position on human rights violations by individuals, groups or states. You must have listened to his speech at the Google event when he referred to SL civil war as viscious and it is like many ethnic problem, it is the problem of the other. Then his general position, “Take away a person’s right, you take away their freedom. Without freedom there can be no justice. No justice, no peace.” This applies to a community as well, including the Black community in the US.

Please don’t compare the American Civil War as if Sri Lankan state is the Union and the Tamils are the slave owning States. It is the Sri Lankan State that has been trying to put Tamils under their control since 1956. If not for the LTTE, SL would have succeeded during JR’s monarchy. You bet on Varatharajah Perumal and you lost. Now you are betting on the Rajapakse Dynasty. I am sure you will jump ship before it sinks.

Please don’t forget that Senator Clinton is still in the Senate and Bill will have some say in foreign policy in the future. If a political solution is not found soon, SL will be facing a bleak economic and political future.

Be realistic, Ours is a politico-economic–social–military war. Military occupation of the North by Sri Lanka will be at the expense of the other three components. Military conquest of the East, even with USAID, Worlds Bank, ADB and others is already bursting at the seams. Sri Lanka occupying the North by military offensive will be like Hitler’s Germany occupying France. The outcome will be the same.

I expected you to back down, as you have, with “time-lines” being replaced by open-ended “trajectories”. This “bait and switch” trick was typical of the George Bush regime selling the Iraq war as well. The next step will be, in a years time, to re-define a no-win trajectory as somehow still a winning one, with the goal posts of “winning” shifted. (In fact, Gen. Sarath Fonseka is already in the midst of doing that; you will see if you analyse his statements over the last year).

Your analysis of the US situation, I would say, is just as poor as your analysis of the SL one. In fact, Bush’s Iraq war started with as much popularity as you claim for the the MR war on LTTE. And, like this one, it was sold by propagating false ideas at various levels. For my analysis on that see: http://nishan-iraq.blogspot.com/

The popularity of the Iraq war plummeted only when the truth, gradually, got widely exposed in the American media. That still took a good 4 years to happen, even without the obstacle of white vans to abduct, torture, imprison or kill journalists that were putting their finger on the truth. (Notice how your journalist friend Tissainayagam is being illegally kept in CID custody for a very long time now).

Of course you read col. Hariharan, and your strategy for “winning the peace”, echoes him in so many ways. But good judgement, which Barack Obama claims enabled him to oppose the Iraq war while it was still overwhelmingly popular, does not consist of just reading intelligence analysis, but also of independent thought and discernment.

This ends my comments and engagement on groundviews on your article.

There’s a general acceptance amongst the public that winning this thing means we have to fight fire with fire: bumping off ‘suspected’ tiger supporters in the south without trial, mass arrest and detention of Tamils, attempted busing of Tamils out of Colombo, killing/kidnapping dissenting journalists. Is this a legitimate part of (even a necessary part of) this war? Also, war means IDPs by the thousands, bombs/artillery hitting civilian settlements, deep penetration units sometimes hitting civilian vehicles. Can we really be trusted to do right by society once this is won, when it is being won in such a dirty fashion, throwing human rights into the back of a white van? Have we become terrorists? Is this now a war between two rival terrorist groups? Has it always been so (black july was a government sponsored pogrom)? Is there no other way out of this other than eliminating the opposition?

I’m sure the rest of us would also be interested in your ideas of sharing/distributing power. Please share them with us too.

more seriously, can’t you see the trend line of military developments since last year, or even january? what is most dangerous is that people like you are living in cloud cockoo land, unble to acknowledge the objective trajectory….never mind the timing.

and hey, here’s one thing you have to go figure: Bush’s war is so unpopular , its all over the US opinion polls, while this war, with the consequences you claim it has, is perceived very differently by the sri lankan public which has lived through it for decades. go check the CPA opinion polls, inculding the latest by the center for irish studies. we’re talking stratospheric ratings in favour.

that’s because Bush’s is a war of aggression, invasion, occupation in a foreign country and is unsuccessful, while ours is a war of slf defence, reunification and national liberation…and by the way, is successfully prosecuted. don’t you even read Col Hariharan’s and Gen Mehta’s stuff?

That’s nonsense. Barack Obama never drew a distinction between terrorists and liberation movements. he has never used the phrase liberation movements even once, and certainly not to refer to any armed movement. you are confusing him with the defeated hillary clinton.

there is of course a difference between liberation movments and terrorist ones, which is why the sri lankan government has long recognised the PLO. could you ame one liberation movement or a state that resulted from a liberation struggle, that recognises the LTTE as a liberation movement? there are none.

President Bush invaded someone else’s country. the sri lankan government is fighting separatism in its own country. the closest american example is not Bush, but Lincoln! and please check out how that war was fought, especially in Georgia. ever heard the song about how they Burnt old Dixie down?

The question of how the government’s current “military solution” will turn out should not be a matter of ideology, but of sound and sober analysis. A serious discussion should not be derailed by the pipe dreams of those who are drunk on their own propaganda.

Dayan offers to meet detractors like me at this website in a year to show us we are wrong. That is already one year further down the road from when the government claimed the war would be decisively “won”. (Recall the highly publicised boasts in January that it would all end by August 2008?)

But I am upping the Anti. Why have these vague offers to meet on websites? Why not make a concrete offer, to which you can be held? You can, for instance, offer to resign all government positions if you turn out to be wrong.

Currently, those paying the price, of the bad analysis and idle fantasies that you tout, are all the people of Sri Lanka who are getting killed and maimed in bombs and battles which will not solve anything; in this stupendously retrogressive path towards “winning-the-nothing”.

Since you made the challenge, may I dare you now to “put your money where your mouth is”. Make today, on this page, a public promise of what you will do by August 2009 if your predictions on the war turn out to be wrong.

(i am smiling, and waiting)

You are the obamas you have been waiting for. or something like that.

the gentleman also forgets to mention that for all obama’s tall of transcending the “race” divide, he frequently acknowledges his indebtedness to the civil rights movement, (the remnants of which include Rev Wright and arguably his own wife) have not yet made that transcending journey with him, pointing out that he would not be where he was if not for them. to thus expect tamils to regard themselves as sri lankan and “compete” before the state is first able to reconfigure itself to provide a level playing field, is to miss the point. obama arrives on the scene a few generations after the hard fought victories of the civil rights movement materialized. he then acknowledges that he can do what he does and say what he says only because of the civil rights movement. it is open for the gentleman to say that tamils ought to take the path taken by the civil rights movement, and express his preference for luther’s version over malcolm x’s, but that is another debate. looking to obama’s example for how tamils should interact politically with the state in the present or near future is silly, and to advocate the position is to employ sloppy logic.

I am not certain, exactly what you are trying to portray in your article. Let me remind you that the LTTE submitted a document called ISGA, which included the very theme that you are talking about the post-war activties etc. The very document that was submitted did talk about this and to start with was an interrim govt for the tamils and then gradually, review the situation and then to decided on the devolution etc. But where did the document end up at? Similar fate to the PTOMS.

The main issue with you sinhala politicos and their cronies are that, you want the tamils to have their freedom at your decression. Say it is like, if you are my neghbour, i am a tamil and you are a sinhalese, I will need to ask you if I can go to the toilet. This is what the freedom that you want to impose on the tamils.

Did it ever come to the thought of your sinhala masters, to ever have a referendum on the said issue? The tamils over whelmingly voted in 1972 for a seperate state, since then the tamil parties have been sweeping victories in the elections on the same platform. This is the pure reason that you don’t want to have a referundum, because you will lose.

Further, if the sinhalese thinks that killing Pirabaharan will solve your ethnic problem, then my friend, you have no idea of the tamil ethnic issue in SL. What makes you think that any one replacing Pirabaharan is more furious than him? Thus your core is in shaky grounds, built on sand, and not concrete.

May be you have sold your core to the IC, but they bought it because they want your wealth. As long as you beg from them, and your politcos and their cronies fill their pockets, no questions asked, but be our salves for the ever. This is another colonisation by the countreis west ,east or south or north of SL.

And your leaders, sorry managers as there is no single sinhala leader with a vision for a prosperous SL. I am sure like our neighbours, and the current political managers who are ruling the country will be able to import some one from abroad, to plunder more resource out of the country and violate any human rights that may be left over.

Good luck.

We must always think of winning over our opponent. Elimination is one way BUT not the only way and not the best way. The best way is to win him over to our side or line of thought.

I do have some ideas/suggestions for peace in Sri Lanka. But it is not devolution of power. It is sharing/distribution of power as different from devolution of power. I would like to contact the writer to discuss my suggestions, if possible.
My email address can be given to him OR his email address can be given to me.

Good article for the most part. I am a Tamil and I support the Tamil Struggle. Whether that struggle translates into a separate “Tamil Eelam” or whether it is done through a proper devolution of power would be all the same to me.

I say good article for the most part because I am in concrete agreement with the body of your essay. You have beautifully spoke about how a country will only flourish when plurism is accepted; when military successes are coincided with political solutions; and when the administration and policies of Sri Lanka are blind to ethnic origin.

You, being a Sinhala, are big enough to point out the mistakes of the policies of pre-War Sri-Lanka; to admonish the Sinhala chauvinists; and to do it in as much of a neutral way as you possibly could.

However, Dayan, even you- one of the more moderate Sinhalese political writers I have read – lack a critical understanding of the Tamil Struggle. And I think, in order to propose any type of idea/solution to this ethnic war, one MUST be able to whole-heartedly understand BOTH sides. You, with all due respect, have a superficial understanding/perception in regards to the Tamil Struggle.

For example, after citing Obama’s speech, you offer some examples to both the Tamils and the Sinhala. To the Tamils, you say,
“….abandon projects of separatist walling-off, integrate into the mainstream, fight against discrimination and for equal rights, regard oneself as a Sri Lankan and compete as one.:”

Dayan, you will agree, that Pre-War, the Tamils yearned to do what you have exactly stated. The Tamils wanted to be one with the Sinhala; we dismissed any claims by any extremists claiming for a separate state; we tried to integrate into the mainstream; and we fought discrimination peacefully.

Dayan, you will agree, these attempts were cut short by the chauvinists and politicians who subsided to these chauvinists. The Tamils were slapped in the face, and kicked to the ground countless times. And eventually, those slaps and kicks eventually gave birth to the “separtists” movements. The “separatist” movement was forced upon the Tamils as the only plausible solution at a time where we felt hopeless.

So when you tell the Tamils to do what we already have tried and been rejected, and then follow it up with the only “advice” to the Sinhala is to be accepting of the Tamils, you project a sense of bias upon yourself.

Lastly, your skewed view of the “Tamil Struggle” can be seen right in the beginning of your essay. You slam the Tigers and their leader Prabaharan, stating the war must be won and the Tigers must be crushed. Now, I assume, that you have this hate for the Tigers because of their “terrorist” type actions, such as,
1) Bombing innocent civilians
2) Iron-handed control of their people
3) Lack of democracy amongst their defacto state.
These some of the common complaints against the Tigers, so understandably, you would be disgusted by such a regime.

However, to the Tamils, the Sri-Lankan government, and especially the Rajapaksa government carry out the same “terrorist” actions. The Tamils, hate and distrust the government as much you and most Sinhala hate the Tamils. I think we both have very valid reasons for our hate for the government/Tigers.

So when you start your article favouring the conitnuing of this “war” so that the “evil” Prabaharan can be killed, you send all Tamils such a chill that it is hard to read on. The continuing of this war will, in effect, diplace hundreds of thousands and indiscriminately kill thousands of Tamils. All in the name to kill the “evil” Prabaharan and to “liberate” the Tamils from the evil “Tigers”.

Can you see that the Tigers are using the same logic to reak havoc on the Sinhala people as your government has done on the Tamil people. To kill the “evil” Rajapaksa or any other reigme which, as you have said, oppresses the Tamil people, and to “liberate” the Tamils from the evil “government”.

Now who is right and who is wrong. I hope you will agree with me that it is not so easy to cast one group in to the “wrong” category and the other into the “right” one.

Agains, Dayan, this comment is not to take away from your insightful article. You propose a great solution, and I hope one day Sri Lanka could be as richly diverse and prosperous as it has the potential to be. However, all Tamils, Sinhala and Muslims, including ones who advocate for peace, must really dig deeper and find a place where they can truly apathize with the other ethnic groups of Sri Lanka

In the model set out here by Dayan, it seems that the way to deal with Tamil extremists is to kill them; and the way to deal with Sinhala extremists is to scold them and urge them to change. That seems to contradict Dayan’s own sense of being even-handed, which I am not questioning.

Perhaps we need at least one alternative vision on how Sri Lanka can overcome an ever deepening ethnic enmity that has dogged it since independence. A vision that is not trapped inside the belief that ‘winning the war’ can be the only path to peace. We need the kind of vision that made the “Good Friday” agreement possible in the UK and brought an end to a conflict of comparable complexity.

Dayan’s professed model and openness is still a positive departure, I would say, from the coterie that pisses in the direction of ‘winning the peace’ and violently closes the political space for alternative visions and dialogue.