Does the Resistance Target Civilians? According to US Intel, Not Really
/ resistance / stigmatized /
The ceaseless demonization of Iraqis committed to ending foreign control of their country is a key ideological crutch for maintaining the American occupation. Smearing the armed resistance as a band of murderous thugs is well understood by American war planners to be a crucial part of effective counter-insurgency work. Obviously, brutal and horrific attacks on Iraqi civilians have been carried out by some forces claiming to be a part of the resistance. But there is strong evidence from US government and independent intelligence data suggesting that this phenomenon has been wildly exaggerated and torn out of context, creating a false public perception that serves to prop up domestic support for the occupation.
Junaid Alam in Left Hook, documents the case that, despite the propaganda blanket description of the resistance in Iraq as evil madmen, targeting civilians is hardly characteristic of most of the armed groups. He bases this assessment on an analysis of the factual evidence mentioned in a Center for Strategic and International Studies' report, titled: The Developing Iraqi Insurgency: Status at End-2004 [pdf].
That there obviously exist factions among the resistance that do target civilians in an effort to fan the sectarian flames, the author does not deny. Yet he points out that they are obviously a minority (judging by the number of such attacks compared to actions against occupation forces and collaborators), and refers to a recent report from Iraq, written by Patrick Cockburn, where the author notes that:
...The split is between Islamic fanatics, willing to killing anybody remotely connected with the government, and Iraqi nationalists who want to concentrate on attacking the 130,000 US troops in Iraq.
Posters threatening extreme resistance fighters have appeared on walls in Ramadi, a Sunni Muslim city on the Euphrates river west of Baghdad.
Insurgents in the city say that resistance to the Americans is being discredited by the kidnapping and killing of civilians. "They have tarnished our image and used the jihad to make personal gains," Ahmed Hussein, an imam from a mosque in Ramadi, was quoted as saying...
At the same time, in another Iraqi city, civilians were certainly targeted, very probably not just with conventional weapons, but with
5 comments:
Umm. This is an interesting topic, but Left Hook is cherry-picking that CSIS report.
From page 4 of the report:
Attacks by insurgents, September 2003 - October 2004
# of attacks / dead / wounded
Coalition forces: 3227 / 451 / 1002
Civilians: 180 / 1981 / 3467
Police: 209 / 180 / 412
Those three groups account for over 90% of all attacks and about 95% of all casualties.
We see that, yah, the majority of attacks are on coalition forces. Counting police as civilians, there are still about 8 times as many attacks on the coalition. (Read US, since the US is over 90% of the coalition, and most of the minor partners are out of harm's way.)
But... civilians account for about 40% of the casualties; insurgent attacks killed at least 2000 people. IOW, attacks on civilians are fewer, but much much more lethal. Which makes sense, right?
Left Hook's explanation of this is... well, read for yourself:
"Far more likely is that nationalist currents within the resistance confront and attack US forces and other symbols of the occupation whereas fanatical, opportunistic elements on the margins conduct spectacular, sectarian attacks which invariably garner sensationalistic media coverage."
IOW, attacks on the US military are done by /good/ insurgents. Any attacks on civilians must be done by /bad/ insurgents. (Who are surely only 'opportunistic elements on the margin'.)
I won't say that's impossible. But it's a huge damn leap of faith.
And it's completely unsupported by the underlying CSIS report. The report has a variety of things to say about the insurgents... frex, that about 90% of them are Sunnis (Which surprised me a little: that high, huh.) But it certainly doesn't exonerate them from attacks on civilians.
Skim pages 4-10, where it discusses evolving insurgent tactics:
"Kill Iraqi elites and 'soft targets. The insurgents soon found it was far easier to kill Iraqi officials and security personnel, and their families, than Americans... killing educated elites and/or their family members -- doctors, professionals, etc. -- could paralyze the nation-building process...
"Hit the softest element of Iraqi security, military and police... men on leave, their families, recruits or those seeking to enlist, green troops and trainees...
"Attack other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq...
"Link asymmetric warfare to crime and looting. Use criminals to support attacks on infrastructure... raise funds, and undermine security. Blur the lines between threat forces [and] criminal elements."
Hm, that last one sounds familiar.
Anyway, half the damn report is about when, why, and how the insurgency targets civilians.
And it most certainly doesn't say that only some 'bad' or 'marginal' elements are attacking civilians. Quite the contrary. The report is very clear that attacks on civilians are a key part of the insurgents' strategy.
Oh, and the Cockburn article doesn't support the "marginal" interpretation either. It does say there's a split between nationalists and nutcases, but it gives no judgment as to what the proportions are.
In fact, the point of the article seems to be that nationalist resentment against the nutcases is becoming competitive with nationalist resentment against the Americans. Notice that it ends with:
"The Sunni community as a whole is reassessing its options in the wake of the 30 January elections which it boycotted. It fears that a Shia-Kurd state, from which it is excluding itself, is developing. In an amazing turnaround, the Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential body often the political wing of the resistance, called last week for Sunnis to join the army and police."
Hmm.
Finally: that report isn't "US Intel". It's from an independent think-tank/NGO, and seems to use only published information.
Dude. There's no shortage of valid critiques of the US invasion. But this... is weak.
Doug M.
Doug, might I suggest that your interpretation of the report is even more problematic that Left Hook's:
Fact: a vast majority of actual attacks (number of attacks) are against Coalition forces and collaborators.
Fact 2: Despite the relevant scarcity of blind attacks against civilans these attacks are bloodier because they're mostly... blind? In a "Bombs in the middle of a market" kinda way?
Therefore if the majority of the resistance *wanted* to simply inflict massive bloodshed, they wouldn't be bothering with the much more dangerous attacks on coalition forces. Indeed I can't imagine a resistance group that is involved in both kinds of attacks.
Furthermore, I would venture to guess that nationalists have no incentive to blow up people willy-nilly. I can't think of any nationalist liberation movement that was involved in blind bombing of its own people. So the reported "evolving insurgent tactics" - are a fact not supported by the numbers thus far.
Thus, any attacks on civilians must be done by a *minority* of insurgents (yes, /bad/ insurgents) otherwise they'd be more of them - right? And they sure as heck don't have much popular support.
And Cockburn surely suggests something about the relative preponderance of the fanatics when he says:
"The near universal antipathy to the occupation enabled marginal, unpopular or criminal groups opposed to the US to flourish. Islamic fundamentalists, commonly called the Salafi or Wahabi, were able to establish themselves in Sunni Muslim districts."
Thus while obviously "The report is very clear that attacks on civilians are a key part of the insurgents' strategy.", its own numbers undermine that claim.
"Therefore if the majority of the resistance *wanted* to simply inflict massive bloodshed, they wouldn't be bothering with the much more dangerous attacks on coalition forces."
Um. The report is pretty clear on what sorts of attacks against civilians are being made.
They aren't random "bombs in the middle of the market". They're targeted attacks against particular sorts of civilians... off duty soldiers, police, professionals, government employees, etc.
Man, just read the headlines. Deadliest attack in Iraq this week? Not against US forces. A car bomber killed six people on Tuesday, attacking an Iraqi army recruitment center.
That's not a "blind" attack. It's a very thoughtful attack. One of ours, six of theirs.
"Indeed I can't imagine a resistance group that is involved in both kinds of attacks."
Um... actually, any serious resistance group is going to attack civilian as well as military targets.
The civilian death toll of the IRA, for example, is well into the hundreds... and that's just in the last iteration of the Troubles.
I'm picking up a rather romantic view of what "resistance" involves, here.
Think it through. Say you're an Iraqi nationalist in the insurgency. You're a non-wacko, not particularly religious, dedicated patriot. Are you going to restrict yourself to attacks against coalition forces? Or will you also go after police, off duty soldiers, civilian contractors to the coalition, NGO employees, civil servants and government employees generally?
Of course you're going to attack civilians. You'd be an idiot not to. Not talking about bomb-in-the-market stuff -- straw man -- talking about deliberate terror against "collaborators". Bombs at recruiting centers. Contractors kidnapped and killed. A too-competent Assistant Minister gunned down in a drive-by shooting. It's tactically sensible. Necessary, even.
Of course, it's strategically idiotic, because guerrillas don't win wars. But that's a story for another time.
Doug M.
Doug sometimes I'm not sure we're arguing about the same thing:
I said: "Therefore if the majority of the resistance *wanted* to simply inflict massive bloodshed, they wouldn't be bothering with the much more dangerous attacks on coalition forces."
DM: Um. The report is pretty clear on what sorts of attacks against civilians are being made.
They aren't random "bombs in the middle of the market". They're targeted attacks against particular sorts of civilians... off duty soldiers, police, professionals, government employees, etc.
No Doug, the table in page 6 of the CSIS report, lists "civilans" as a separate category form police, local government, ICDC etc. These attacks against civilans are not mostly targeted attacks - if they were they wouldn't have a ratio of 10 killed for every attack, now, would they? By the kill ratio I would definitely say that they are mostly "random bombs in the middle of the mosque".
The other categories you mention strain the defintion of what a civilian is under a foreign occupation.
DM: Man, just read the headlines. Deadliest attack in Iraq this week? Not against US forces. A car bomber killed six people on Tuesday, attacking an Iraqi army recruitment center.
... Which would be filed under ICDC in the report wouldn't it?
I said; "Indeed I can't imagine a resistance group that is involved in both kinds of attacks."
DM: Um... actually, any serious resistance group is going to attack civilian as well as military targets.
The civilian death toll of the IRA, for example, is well into the hundreds... and that's just in the last iteration of the Troubles.
Not Catholic Irish though eh? Again you're confusing your definition of civilian with the ICDC's.
I'm picking up a rather romantic view of what "resistance" involves, here.
Not at all. This particular resistance is not at all my cup of ideological tea on the whole. Yet I consider them to have every right to fight an invading, occupying force. It's their country. You're saying that the majority(?) of the resistance, is targeting "civilans" as well, using a definition of civilians that is rather different than the the one the report we're discussing uses. They certainly are targeting police, army, civil servants, authorities, in numbers that are given explicitly in the report. Yet all of these numbers together do not add up to even a third of the direct attacks against occupation forces, and contractors.
Anyway I'm not debating your point. Obviously a resistance will target collaborators and quislings.This is historically established. But you're talking about a different thing than the Left Hook author and the CSIS report.
DM: Of course you're going to attack civilians. You'd be an idiot not to. Not talking about bomb-in-the-market stuff -- straw man -- talking about deliberate terror against "collaborators".
But "bomb in the market stuff" is exactly what the CSIS files under "civilians" (judging from the death rate). It is also what Alam refers to when he talks about the Media coverage. See the second chart he posts by the way.
DM: Bombs at recruiting centers. Contractors kidnapped and killed. A too-competent Assistant Minister gunned down in a drive-by shooting. It's tactically sensible. Necessary, even.
Indeed, but that's another issue than the one Alam is talking about.
DM: Of course, it's strategically idiotic, because guerrillas don't win wars. But that's a story for another time.
Eh? It depends on how you define "war" and "guerrila". This is not a regular "war" anymore - this is a national liberation movement using guerrila tactics to push an invader (or a hostile government) out.
Some very quick counter-examples:
- Hizbollah - Israel: Southern Lebanon.
- Algeria - France
- Sandinistas - Nicaragua
- Cyprus - British
- err China - Mao
- Cuba - Castro
- Vietnam - France (and possibly one can argue the US)
One could also argue that there are many instances where the existence of a serious guerrila force was leveraged in the negotiating table.
In short neither the author nor I are arguing that the resistance doesn't (or even shouldn't) target the sort of people *you* list as civilians. We're both arguing that the image of the resistance as a group of thugs that are randomly killing people (which appears in much of the US Media, and is suggested in the official US gvt rhetoric), is provably inaccurate.
Oh and Finally: that report isn't "US Intel". It's from an independent think-tank/NGO, and seems to use only published information.
I probably misstated this, though in the article its made plainly clear:
"...It is not possible to dismiss the statistics as a fluke. An April 11th New York Times article titled "U.S. Commanders See Possible Troop Cuts in Iraq" is accompanied by a graph representing resistance attacks by number and by proportion for the period of March 2003 to March 2005, broken down into the following categories: attacks on U.S. and allied forces, civilians, Iraqi forces, and other targets. The source of the data is the Defense Intelligence Agency"
Thus the "intelligence sources" refers to the NYT article (the table I relinked to in this comment)
I'm in Albania this week, and don't have time for the usual rough-and-tumble fun.
Just one point, though.
"The civilian death toll of the IRA, for example, is well into the hundreds... and that's just in the last iteration of the Troubles."
"Not Catholic Irish though eh?"
YES, Catholic Irish.
The IRA has been killing Catholic Irish for years. The bulk of those are people the IRA killed because they'd gotten in the way of criminal activities. A smaller group consists of those they've killed becase they were supposedly informers or cooperating with the British. However, they've also killed plenty of people who simply annoyed them. Estimates vary, but "over 100" would be conservative.
Again, I'm talking _Catholic Irish civilians_ here. Ordinary people, not cops or soldiers. (Not that the Republic has much by way of soldiers.)
Have you been following the news from Ireland, at all? The IRA recently murdered a Catholic civilian named Robert McCartney. It seems to have started as a routine shakedown, but McCartney put up an unexpected fight, so they cut his throat. Nothing unusual there. The difference is that his two sisters insisted on taking the case to the police and the newspapers, and actually got some public sympathy. This is very unusual, and has the IRA badly off-balance.
But they've killed dozens of ordinary Catholic civilians that way. Google, ohh, Mark Robinson or Jimmy McGinley. Those just recently. They've been at it for years.
So, yes, Irish Catholics.
If you add British civilians, the number is of course much larger. Starting in 1974, when the IRA bombed two pubs in Birmingham, killing 24 perfectly innocent working-class men and women and wounding another hundred or so; and continuing to 1998, when the Omagh bombing killed 29 people (6 men, 14 women -- 2 of them pregnant -- and 9 children) and wounded over 200, maiming many for life.
So, dozens of Irish Catholic civilians, hundreds of British civilians.
Notice that they're continuing to struggle in the name of something that the majority of people in Ireland -- Catholic or Protestant -- do not want. The Republic doesn't want the North any more. Sinn Fein is picking up protest votes against the two major parties (one is dull and corrupt, the other is corrupt and dull, as they say), but poll after poll shows that nobody under the age of 50 gives a damn about the North. Even a lot of northern Catholics have lost interest, now that they've found they can just drive across the border and get a better job. Yet the IRA is still killing in the name of "liberation". (Actually it's mostly in the name of protection rackets, smuggling, armed robbery, fencing, and the like, but hey... the Revolution must be financed!)
I have an Irish passport, BTW -- double citizenship. My grandfather was an IRA man. And if every one of them was removed from the earth tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear.
Doug M.
Post a Comment