Opponents of the occupation of Iraq will have been shocked by
the actions by some of the armed groups resisting it - in particular the kidnapping and beheading of civilians. PIERS MOSTYN considers how we should respond. Wars are dirty. The proportion of civilians killed as a proportion of total deaths has increased over the past century. The First World War, for all its savagery, involved a large proportion of military deaths.
By the Second World War the balance had shifted overwhelmingly towards civilian deaths - that's before taking
of the holocaust. With Vietnam the shift became more entrenched.
This results from the military strategy of the imperialist states, which use new technology to wreak terror among enemy civilian populations and minimise their own soldier fatalities.
With the success of a series of anti-colonial struggles and in particular Vietnam not only has this approach been imperative but the job of carrying it out has increasingly. been sub-contracted to proxies: either terror groups (Al Qaeda originated as a US proxy) or barbaric dictatorships propped up by Western arms and finance (from Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to Chile asse and Congo).
This doesn't mean that 90г0 "because they do it, it's alright for us to". We can hardly argue that society faces a choice between socialism and barbarism and then follow the barbarians. But it is important to remember who is actually butchering civilians by the There is little critical insight into who is involved in armed action hundreds of thousands.
It also has to be emphasised that what is happening in Irag is a war. The word "terrorism" has been so abused that it has become a major conceptual distraction in discussions around this issue.
Some have allowed themselves to be drawn into an illogical chain of argument that goes as follows: (i) individual terrorist actions are wrong as they substitute for and are an obstacle to mass action by the class; (ii) all armed actions in which civilians die are terrorism; (iii) all such action must be opposed as terroristic.
These arguments may have relevance in 'peacetime'. But they do not apply in war. When major cities are being pulverised, their civilian populations face slaughter by the hundreds and thousands and forced removal in far greater numbers, the use of arms and explosives is a completely difterent matter
Under such conditions any group resisting simply doesn't have the luxury of organising in a particular way preordained from the armchairs of London. They have little option but to employ whatever means are at hand that will make the occupation as difficult, physically and politically, as possible. In a population with no open tradition of political organisation for decades, mass deprivation and few resources some of the methods used reflect will such weaknesses and even desperation.
Faced by the world's preeminent uber-power, with conventional military victory ruled out from the start, any resistance will be more geared to attrition, or wearing down the occupiers than outright short term defeat.
The absence of a long-term coherent over-arching strategy does not in itself de-legitimise acts of resistance. To deny this is to require Iraqis to tailor their opposition to such a degree as to make meaningful resistance impossible.
During the recent assault on Falluja an American officer was quoted as disparaging the insurgents for using the city as a battleground rather than engaging in a clean, open' fight in the desert - stating they are cowards who fear the obliteration that would follow.
But why should doesn't have the
fighters choose a terrain or method that makes
easier for the occupiers and more difficult for their struggle?
This isn't an 'ends justify the means' argument. Even bourgeois moral and legal theory recognises not only the right of self defence but also that what is "reasonable' in this context rs cannot be judged by the standards of cool hindsight from a hypothetical viewpoint but in the heat of the difficult situation the individuals or communities find themselves.
The only people who disagree with this are pacificists. That is an entirely different,
although important, argument. In any event, little of the information we receive can be relied upon. The mainstream media outlets rely on journalists either embedded with the military or trapped within the confines of a limited area in Bahgdad. They rarely reflect the viewpoint of ordinary Iraqis. Furthermore, misinformation is a systematic and frontline tool of the occupiers' warfare and one that the media doesn't challenge or expose. Therefore total scepticism against the daily dripfeed of distortion and bias is essential. One consequence of this is that completely false impression has been created as to who is really responsible for killing and terrorising the civilian population in Iraq. Even the puppet Iraqi Ministry of Health' attributed the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths between March and October 2004 to the occupying forces. But you wouldn't think so watching the news. And there is little critical insight into who is involved in armed actions. Some are carried out by groups that are not part of the resistance at all. As we have already noted, the US and Britain have a long history of involvement with terrorism. They would not baulk at supplying and financing agent provocateurs and others in order to destabilise the opposition. The massive social upheaval that flows from the occupiers sustained Any group destruction of
social infrastrucresisting simply
ture also results in criminal gangs luxury of and anti-social
elements being organising in a given free rein. particular way The kidnapping and beheadpre-ordained
Using of Irish-born from the Margaret Hassan
this autumn was a armchairs of
case in point. The London. presumption that
was encouraged was that this was the act of a resistance group. But no named group took responsibility. Even Abu Musab al-Zargawi denounced
the action and said he would
release her if she was handed over to him. Hassan was opposed to the war and to the previous destructive sanctions and had mass support. It is difficult to see that any element of the resistance
might see such an action as
beneficial. The fact is that the
action played into the hands
of the occupiers and this may point to who was in fact responsible.
However it would be wrong
to jump from suchreasonable speculation to a position of asserting that any such atrocities must be the responsible of the invasion force.
Whilst keeping an open mind, it is clear that a few resistance groups are engaging in these actions.
There are others recklessly endangering or even deliberately targeting civilians in bombings. Whatever qualifications we place, however uncharacteristic these methods are and whether they are deliberate or bourne from desperation, we have to say that this is wrong.
Large numbers can be, and have been, persuaded to take part in mass action despite all the difficulties. There have been strikes in key sectors and mass demonstrations against the occupation.
Actions which enhance such a dynamic are always preferable to those that act as an obstacle. This isn't a simplistic question of posing such tactics as "the solution".
Any type of physical resistance is more likely to succeed if based on mass support and involvement - it's basic guerrilla-fighting theory.
There is also a symbiotic relationship between the ability to build a mass militant opposition to the war internationally and the struggle in
Attacking the colonial powers for their wanton disregard for and deliberate targeting of civilians is more difficult if a few resistance groups are seen do the same, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Where to draw the line and how this dynamic works out precisely on the ground is a matter that only those intimately involved can decide. It requires detailed knowledge of the political and military situation in Iraq.
The Iraqi people themselves will have to decide what is the best way of liberating themselves, even if they have to make some mistakes to get there.
At the same time, those of us in the imperialist countries shouldn't insist that all support must be ulcritical or that any criticism can be a justification for withdrawing support. Instead we call for unconditional but critical support.
page 15 of the scan
The demonstrations by Ukrainian languages. They