Aisha Gadaffi, the daughter of the Libyan leader, declared her support for insurgents in Iraq last week.
Opening a conference on human rights in Tripoli, she said: ”Freedom is taken by force and not granted, and the rights of people are taken by their own hands … What is happening in Iraq cannot be ignored by any honest person … the Iraqi land is occupied, people are dying, scientists are being assassinated and women are being raped.
”We salute proudly the fighters of the Iraqi resistance who were able to break the American dream.”
Her view is shared by many in the Arab/Islamic world and beyond, although not necessarily by a majority of ordinary Iraqis.
”Districts like Ameriyah have become Jihadi Central,” Salam Pax, the Baghdad blogger, complained a few days ago.
”After they blew up all the clothes shops there, they started blowing up grocery shops, and now they have moved on to shops selling watches. Very symbolic, isn’t it? Time stops HERE.”
Two days before Aisha made her speech, insurgents seized five Shia teachers and their driver as they left a primary school, lined them up against a wall and shot them dead.
A prominent Shia cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed al-Yaaqubi, responded by adopting the Israeli approach, issuing a religious edict allowing his followers to ”kill terrorists [or at least people they think might be terrorists] before they kill”.
It is unclear how many civilians have been killed by insurgents in Iraq, although the Iraqi says there were 1 594 civilian deaths as a result of bombings, assassinations and armed clashes with insurgents during the first six months of this year. Deaths among the Iraqi security forces during the same period totalled 895.
Those who join insurgent groups have a variety of goals. As well as seeking to expel foreign forces from Iraq, some are resisting the marginalisation of Sunni Muslims by the Shia-dominated government, while others are fighting for control of strategic areas such as Kirkuk. Some see themselves as being engaged in a global struggle for Islam.
The killing of civilians by insurgents is not incidental, however, but forms part of an overall strategy. This includes:
- Punishing individuals — drivers, contractors, translators, etc — for collaboration, with the aim of discouraging others from taking on this kind of work.
- Punishing members of religious or ethnic communities, either because they are thought to be co-operating with foreign forces or — in the case of the Kurds and the Shia — because of their influence within Iraq.
- Pressurising foreign governments to abandon Iraq. This not only includes nations with military forces in the country, but also others that have merely established diplomatic relations.
- Undermining the Iraqi government by attacking politicians, officials and their families.
- Diverting resources from military tasks in order to protect ”soft” targets.
- Impeding reconstruction by attacking pipelines, electricity supplies, etc.
- Provoking a heavy-handed response from the security forces in the hope of winning new recruits.
These tactics are challenged in a report issued on Monday by Human Rights Watch, which accuses the insurgents of war crimes.
The laws of war do not outlaw insurgent groups or prohibit attacks on legitimate military targets, the report says — but they restrict the means and manner of attacks and oblige all forces in a conflict to protect civilians and other non-combatants.
”There are no justifications for targeting civilians, in Iraq or anywhere else,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East director of Human Rights Watch.
”Armed groups as well as governments must respect the laws of war.”
The organisation, based in Washington, has previously documented abuses by US forces in Iraq as well as torture by the Iraqi police.
”US forces have used excessive and indiscriminate force, tortured detainees and held thousands of Iraqis without due process,” Whitson said.
”But that does not justify attacks by insurgent groups that have deliberately targeted and killed civilians.”
The 140-page report — entitled A Face and a Name: Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq — examines some of the arguments used by insurgents to justify the killing of civilians.
In the eyes of one former Iraqi general quoted in the report, ”every Iraqi or foreigner who works with the coalition is a target. Ministries, mercenaries, translators, businessmen, cooks or maids, it doesn’t matter the degree of collaboration. To sign a contract with the occupier is to sign your death certificate”.
Iraqi government officials ”are all spies, traitors, and agents for the Americans”, according to a spokesperson for the insurgent group Jaysh Muhammad. To the head of the pro-Saddam group, Wahaj al-Iraq, the Iraqi Parliament and government are ”the institutions of the aggressor”.
Shia Muslims, Kurds and Christians are also legitimate targets, according to some insurgents.
”The American forces and their intelligence systems have found a safe haven and refuge amongst their brethren the grandchildren of monkeys and swine in Iraq,” one group said when claiming responsibility for attacking five churches in Mosul and Baghdad.
Westerners in Iraq — whether contractors, journalists or aid workers — are also considered elements, or potential elements, of a foreign occupation, the report says. According to a statement by the Assadullah (Lion of God) Brigades, ”the mujahid [holy fighter] is entitled to capture any infidel that enters Iraq, whether he works for a construction company or in any other job, because he could be a warrior, and the mujahid has the right to kill him or take him as a prisoner”.
An audio tape attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, went even further: ”The killing of infidels by any method including martyrdom [suicide] operations has been sanctified by many scholars even if it means killing innocent Muslims.
”This legality has been agreed upon … so as not to disrupt jihad,” the speaker said. ”The shedding of Muslim blood … is allowed in order to avoid the greater evil of disrupting jihad.”
Coupled with these arguments is a view that because the US has overwhelming technology and firepower, any means of resistance can be justified — including the murder of civilians.
Some also point to double standards in the application of international law, arguing that insurgent groups should not be expected to respect the law when the other side disregards it.
None of these justifications is legally defensible, the Human Rights Watch report concludes.
”The justifications for attacking specific groups of people misread or misapply the definition of a civilian as it applies under the laws of war,” it says.
”The arguments that international law does not apply [to insurgent groups] are contrary to long-accepted understandings of the applicability of the laws of war.
”International humanitarian law provides that in all armed conflicts, whether during armed conflicts between states, occupations or civil wars, the parties must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants.
”According to the principle of civilian immunity, attacks may only be directed against combatants, and never civilians.”
Elaborating on the legal difference between combatants and civilians, the report continues: ”Civilians are defined as persons who are not members of the armed forces. A civilian is protected against attack unless … he or she takes a direct part in hostilities.
”In practice, a civilian would temporarily lose immunity by, for instance, picking up a weapon and engaging in fighting, loading ammunition during a battle or spotting targets for artillery. Civilians involved in the planning of military operations or who are giving orders to military forces likewise may be subject to attack.
”While a worker in a munitions factory may be assisting the war effort, the absence of direct participation in hostilities means the person cannot be subject to attack [the munitions factory is a legitimate target, however, and the worker bears the risks of being present there].”
In the Arab world, the invasion of Iraq under false pretences and scandals such as the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib have tended to divert attention from the ruthless brutality of the insurgents.
”Because so many people support the cause of the insurgency, they have been unwilling to critique the methods and the means,” Whitson said.
”Whatever your position on the war, the means of doing it is wrong. At Human Rights Watch we don’t take a view on the decision to go to war or the decision to resist … but the cardinal rule is that you don’t target civilians.” – Guardian Unlimited Â