"The alternative to politics is warfare." I don't know the source of that quote, but I think it makes a good point. My vantage is as an American, essentially neutral in this matter, with no axe to grind or cause to espouse (though with some sympathy for the Irish--all Irish--who I think have gotten a raw deal over the years).

I think the IRA blew it. Though skilled in their type of warfare, they appear rather inept at politics. This scuttled peace agreement and coalition government struck me as the first realistic opportunity to move out of the mode of shooting at each other and progress into the mode of arguing with each other (note particularly the prepositions AT and WITH, which are significant). I can't see any compelling reason to not have made a token gesture of decommissioning before now. It really looks like a matter of false pride, putting the appearance of being totally independent above what might actually work to move things along. I can only pray it wasn't the last realistic opportunity for lasting peace.

The proposed agreement, however imperfect, represented a drastic change from anything I'd seen or heard before. It could very well have been a stepping-stone to further improvement, all in the context of an ongoing truce. Regardless of what happened last month, or last year, or twenty or eighty years ago, etc., this COULD have worked, and it was there in hand, only to slip away at the last moment. It seems everyone except the IRA--the Yanks, the British, the Irish (most of them), the Unionists--thought it was worth giving a try. It seemed there was so much to gain and so little to lose by TRYING to make it work. It just seems the IRA failed to grasp the staggering potential here.

Well, here's hoping things get better anyway. It's still possible, though there's cause to wonder if all parties involved are psychologically capable of embracing peace and the compromise necessary for peace. Sometimes, when everybody else says you're wrong, you really are wrong.