Does the Iraqi Resistance Target Civilians?

[chlamor]

Does the Resistance Target Civilians?
According to US Intel, Not Really

by M. Junaid Alam
April 18, 2005
 
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. (1) 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.

Consider the intelligence report produced on December 22, 2004, by the prestigious Center for Strategic and International Studies, headed by Anthony Cordesman, titled “The Developing Iraqi Insurgency: Status at end-2004.” (2) Cordesman issues a blunt critique of US government blindness about the scope and nature of the insurgency: “ was slow to react to the growth of the Iraqi insurgency in Iraq, to admit it was largely domestic in character, and to admit it had significant popular support.”

The most intriguing portion of the report, though, is a set of statistics compiled about attacks carried out by the resistance from September 2003 to October 2004, organized by type of target, number of attacks, and number of people killed and wounded. The data, described as having been collected by an “NGO coordinating committee” is organized into a table in the report. I have culled the data specifically concerning “number of attacks/incidents” and presented it as a chart graphic contained in the clickable link below.

One can clearly see that the number of attacks on “Coalition Forces” far exceeds that of any other category on the list. Indeed, attacks on military occupying forces, and by extension mostly US military forces, accounts for 75% of all attacks. Meanwhile, civilian targets comprise a mere 4.1% of attacks. This reality is at striking odds with the general picture painted in the press of a narcissistic, mindless and sinister insurgency simply bent on chaos and destruction.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7670

[pnorman]

1. This is VERY significant.

I just hit it with a "Recommend". Also, I just subscribed to the online edition of Z. (I used to subscribe to it for several years, but let it lapse. They used to pile up. But online for me is much more convenient).

pnorman

[BillZBubb]

2. It's been pretty obvious to those who follow closely

that most of the civilian casualties have been collateral damage--not the intended targets. DU'ers should know this.

Recommended.

[pnorman]

3. Probably not all DUers do.

And how about all the people who still believe the BushCo Party Line? Reportedly, over HALF of this country still believes that Saddam was responsible for 9-11, and all the rest. This has to be passed around, until it seeps into the MSM. A few more recommendations would be good.

pnorman

[Alpharetta]

4. This is contrary to other liberal media reports

Many anti-war news organizations have reported that the US occupation of Iraq has resulted in crimes against doctors, lawyers and other professionals in Iraq. They've made it appear that one goal of local insurgents is to destabilize their local government and services.

We've read about barber shops being closed by militant muslims who want a theocracy in Iraq.

We've read about muslim militias controlling many of the towns and driving out any potential non-clerical leadership.

I am skeptical of any news stories or statistics characterizing the insurgency. There are too many different groups at work.

[SweetLeftFoot]

5. True

but it should also be recognised that guerilla fighters use very flexible tactics.

Look at the IRA (the oldest and the boldest of all guerilla movements)in some parts of Northern Ireland they exclusively attacked military targets while at some times in their campaign they launched repugnant attacks clearly aimed against English civilians on the mainland - largely for political purposes.

I have no doubt that certain elements of the insurgency (which as you is extremely disparate in its make-up) have targeted civilians. This is a classic guerilla tactic - the idea is raise panic in the civilian population and to make the area ungovernable by the curent occupying power, thus presenting the guerilla as the only legitimate source of law and order and more importantly, protection.

But given the US record of using exactly the same tactic, only on a vastly bigger scale (remember the bombing campaign on Belgrade?) to criticise Iraqi fighters for ding so is hypocritical in the extreme.

[kiki]

6. Combine this

with the statistic that you are now 58 times more likely to die a violent death in Iraq than you were under Saddam...

...and that's a whole lot o' murder goin' on.