hist2004
07-31-2005, 08:53 AM
Iraq: When Are Terrorists Really Insurgents?
One Person’s Terrorist …
Rumsfeld’s latest Iraq visit included some tough talking to Baghdad’s new government. Why the language matters.
By Joe Cochrane
Newsweek
July 28, 2005
July 28 - It was an unannounced visit, but Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld proved to be full of announcements as he steamrolled through Iraq on a one-day trip yesterday. And the namesake of "Rummyworld," as Iraq is sometimes referred to these days, certainly gave transitional Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari some blunt talk during their private meeting. The message was clear: the United States wants to begin pulling troops out of Iraq within a year, and the country's leadership must start getting tough to ensure that things are stable enough for it to happen.
Armed with a serious to-do list, Rumsfeld told Jaafari that Washington would not look kindly on any delays in submitting a draft Iraqi constitution to parliament by the Aug. 15 deadline. Any postponements caused by bickering among the country's three main factions could push back an October nationwide constitutional referendum and national elections slated for December, ultimately jeopardizing plans to begin withdrawing large numbers of American soldiers in spring 2006. Rumsfeld also told the Iraqi PM to be ready to assume more responsibility for up to 15,000 Iraqi detainees in American custody and to make plans to take over security duties from more than 20,000 foreign Coalition soldiers who are scheduled to withdraw by December.
Rumsfeld offered some of his trademark blunt advice to the new government: start talking tough to neighboring Syria and Iran "to see that foreign terrorists stop coming across those borders and that their neighbors do not harbor insurgents and finance insurgents in a way that is destructive of what the Iraqi people are trying to accomplish," he said. That statement not only highlighted Iraq's largest external security threat, but underscored a point that tends to get lost in the fog of propaganda on the ground here. The new Iraq government is facing not one security threat, but two. The biggest one is from Iraqi insurgents—mostly drawn from the ranks of the disaffected Sunni minority who enjoyed favored status under Saddam Hussein. The secondary threat comes from foreign suicide bombers—the kind Western governments vilify as a grave threat to human civilization.
The distinction between resistance and terror is an important one—and one not often made by U.S. officials in Iraq. Take, for example, the daily press releases from the U.S. military via their combined public information center, a.k.a. CPIC—here in Baghdad. A military operation in Mosul: 10 terrorists captured, is a typical comment. A firefight in outside Baghdad: three terrorists killed. A security sweep based on good intelligence—a terrorist operation thwarted. It all sounds pretty clear. But it's not. The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government. Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.
The vast majority of attacks against U.S. and Iraqi security forces are perpetrated by former members of Saddam Hussein's regime and Sunnis fearful of being politically marginalized by the Kurds and majority Shiites. Then there are the foreign Muslims coming into Iraq to wage jihad against the United States and its allies, primarily through suicide bombings. The first group sees itself as resisting an army of occupation, the second neither cares about the Iraqi people nor the country's political status, wanting only to thwart the Americans by creating fear and chaos. The latter group can fairly be called terrorists.
What's the difference? Most dictionaries define insurgents as members of an organized revolt against a recognized government, usually through harassment or subversion. Terrorists, on
the other hand, generally target civilians, using violence for intimidation or coercion, often for ideological reasons or under cover of religion. It's clear that both are operating in Iraq at the moment, and equally clear that there are times when the line is blurred. Should those who bomb American soldiers without caring if ordinary Iraqis get hurt—and there are many cases of those—be labeled differently to those who specifically target young jobseekers or senior citizens waiting to collect their pensions?
In all fairness, U.S. military commanders usually make clear distinctions between insurgents and terrorists during their regular briefings inside the Green Zone in Baghdad. These sessions are slightly surreal—military officers and journalists, inside six square miles of blast walls and barbed wire, debate fighting outside that kills hundreds each month. But why, in between these weekly briefings, do the military's press releases seem to identify everyone against them or the Iraqi government as a terrorist? That in itself raises some other troubling questions: is this deliberate White House or Pentagon spin? Is this an evolution of the cold war mentality of calling people who are perceived threats communists? Should we start referring to pickpockets and junior-high bullies as terrorists?
Of course not. But we can't only blame American spin doctors for misleading language. Russia has scored huge points by calling Chechen rebels "international Islamic terrorists," even though they've been fighting for independence for well over a century and consider Russian sovereignty over them as an occupation. Then there's Indonesia, which after the 9/11 attacks started calling armed separatists in Aceh province "terrorists" in hopes of getting them on the infamous U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The Americans balked at that one, probably because the Indonesian military has been even worse, killing thousands of civilians during the 29-year conflict, not to mention admitting to the rapes of at least 10,000 women. The debate over describing someone as a terrorist is hardly new. In conflicts the world over, one side's "terrorist" has often been the other side's freedom fighter. But while many news organizations try to use the word judiciously, it has become a bigger part of the public discourse since the 9/11 attacks.
Obviously a change in nomenclature is not going to change the bleak situation on the ground in Iraq. "Any foreigners who want to kill us or stop the political process, we will have to fight them long after the Americans leave," Adnan al-Janabi, a senior member of Iraq's national assembly, told NEWSWEEK this week. Iraqi officials are hopeful that the insurgency will fade away after a permanent constitution is ratified, new elections are held and U.S. soldiers withdraw. But that doesn’t mean they expect terrorism to go away any time soon.
Regards,
Hist2004
One Person’s Terrorist …
Rumsfeld’s latest Iraq visit included some tough talking to Baghdad’s new government. Why the language matters.
By Joe Cochrane
Newsweek
July 28, 2005
July 28 - It was an unannounced visit, but Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld proved to be full of announcements as he steamrolled through Iraq on a one-day trip yesterday. And the namesake of "Rummyworld," as Iraq is sometimes referred to these days, certainly gave transitional Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari some blunt talk during their private meeting. The message was clear: the United States wants to begin pulling troops out of Iraq within a year, and the country's leadership must start getting tough to ensure that things are stable enough for it to happen.
Armed with a serious to-do list, Rumsfeld told Jaafari that Washington would not look kindly on any delays in submitting a draft Iraqi constitution to parliament by the Aug. 15 deadline. Any postponements caused by bickering among the country's three main factions could push back an October nationwide constitutional referendum and national elections slated for December, ultimately jeopardizing plans to begin withdrawing large numbers of American soldiers in spring 2006. Rumsfeld also told the Iraqi PM to be ready to assume more responsibility for up to 15,000 Iraqi detainees in American custody and to make plans to take over security duties from more than 20,000 foreign Coalition soldiers who are scheduled to withdraw by December.
Rumsfeld offered some of his trademark blunt advice to the new government: start talking tough to neighboring Syria and Iran "to see that foreign terrorists stop coming across those borders and that their neighbors do not harbor insurgents and finance insurgents in a way that is destructive of what the Iraqi people are trying to accomplish," he said. That statement not only highlighted Iraq's largest external security threat, but underscored a point that tends to get lost in the fog of propaganda on the ground here. The new Iraq government is facing not one security threat, but two. The biggest one is from Iraqi insurgents—mostly drawn from the ranks of the disaffected Sunni minority who enjoyed favored status under Saddam Hussein. The secondary threat comes from foreign suicide bombers—the kind Western governments vilify as a grave threat to human civilization.
The distinction between resistance and terror is an important one—and one not often made by U.S. officials in Iraq. Take, for example, the daily press releases from the U.S. military via their combined public information center, a.k.a. CPIC—here in Baghdad. A military operation in Mosul: 10 terrorists captured, is a typical comment. A firefight in outside Baghdad: three terrorists killed. A security sweep based on good intelligence—a terrorist operation thwarted. It all sounds pretty clear. But it's not. The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government. Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.
The vast majority of attacks against U.S. and Iraqi security forces are perpetrated by former members of Saddam Hussein's regime and Sunnis fearful of being politically marginalized by the Kurds and majority Shiites. Then there are the foreign Muslims coming into Iraq to wage jihad against the United States and its allies, primarily through suicide bombings. The first group sees itself as resisting an army of occupation, the second neither cares about the Iraqi people nor the country's political status, wanting only to thwart the Americans by creating fear and chaos. The latter group can fairly be called terrorists.
What's the difference? Most dictionaries define insurgents as members of an organized revolt against a recognized government, usually through harassment or subversion. Terrorists, on
the other hand, generally target civilians, using violence for intimidation or coercion, often for ideological reasons or under cover of religion. It's clear that both are operating in Iraq at the moment, and equally clear that there are times when the line is blurred. Should those who bomb American soldiers without caring if ordinary Iraqis get hurt—and there are many cases of those—be labeled differently to those who specifically target young jobseekers or senior citizens waiting to collect their pensions?
In all fairness, U.S. military commanders usually make clear distinctions between insurgents and terrorists during their regular briefings inside the Green Zone in Baghdad. These sessions are slightly surreal—military officers and journalists, inside six square miles of blast walls and barbed wire, debate fighting outside that kills hundreds each month. But why, in between these weekly briefings, do the military's press releases seem to identify everyone against them or the Iraqi government as a terrorist? That in itself raises some other troubling questions: is this deliberate White House or Pentagon spin? Is this an evolution of the cold war mentality of calling people who are perceived threats communists? Should we start referring to pickpockets and junior-high bullies as terrorists?
Of course not. But we can't only blame American spin doctors for misleading language. Russia has scored huge points by calling Chechen rebels "international Islamic terrorists," even though they've been fighting for independence for well over a century and consider Russian sovereignty over them as an occupation. Then there's Indonesia, which after the 9/11 attacks started calling armed separatists in Aceh province "terrorists" in hopes of getting them on the infamous U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The Americans balked at that one, probably because the Indonesian military has been even worse, killing thousands of civilians during the 29-year conflict, not to mention admitting to the rapes of at least 10,000 women. The debate over describing someone as a terrorist is hardly new. In conflicts the world over, one side's "terrorist" has often been the other side's freedom fighter. But while many news organizations try to use the word judiciously, it has become a bigger part of the public discourse since the 9/11 attacks.
Obviously a change in nomenclature is not going to change the bleak situation on the ground in Iraq. "Any foreigners who want to kill us or stop the political process, we will have to fight them long after the Americans leave," Adnan al-Janabi, a senior member of Iraq's national assembly, told NEWSWEEK this week. Iraqi officials are hopeful that the insurgency will fade away after a permanent constitution is ratified, new elections are held and U.S. soldiers withdraw. But that doesn’t mean they expect terrorism to go away any time soon.
Regards,
Hist2004