Legitimate targets of resistance?

[Hurkyl]

This thread is to investigate the question of what constitutes a legitimate target by resistance forces. The main scenario under consideration is Iraq, but I imagine much would apply to the Israeli-Palestinian situation as well.

The title asks it all -- what are legitimate targets for a resistance force?

When starting this thread, I decided that I'd look at the first three links I got off of doing a Yahoo! news search on "Iraq" that looked like they contained examples of insurgent action, just to get started.

They were:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_images_1
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050626111836
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050626/wl_afp/iraq_050626112117


At this point, I've only read a little bit of the first link. Now, reading through them...


Some examples of insurgent actions (not intended to be a representative sample) from the first link:


"Underneath is the body of a 10-year-old girl, killed in her neighborhood by a roadside bomb."

"In photograph after photograph, burned-out wreckages hulk under highway overpasses, straddle sidewalks, slam into the sides of tanker trucks."

"From a helicopter hovering near the Syrian border, an image is made of 10 dead men, outlined by an expanse of desert ... They are thought to have been off-duty Iraqi soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes, driving two minivans across the desert toward a vacation in Baghdad."

"an Iraqi translator kidnapped five months ago with a French journalist"


From the second:

"The first attack happened at a police headquarters in Mosul, killing 13 policemen and two civilians and wounding six more"

"a suicide bomber blew himself up in a parking lot outside an Iraqi army base, killing 16 and wounding seven more, Walter said. Almost all the victims were civilian workers arriving at the site"

"a suicide car bomb struck an Iraqi police convoy near a checkpoint, wounding four police officers"

"a suicide bomber trailed by five cars loaded with armed insurgents slammed into a wall outside the home of an Iraqi special forces police officer in the Sunni triangle city of Samarra, killing at least nine people on the street"

"insurgents rounded up eight police officers at a checkpoint outside the western city of Ramadi, then marched them into their office and shot them to death,"


And from the third:

"The bomber drove a pickup truck loaded with explosives concealed under a cargo of melons to the back wall of the Al-Hadba police station"

"a deputy police chief in Baghdad, was gunned down outside his home"

"One of the attacks involved insurgents blowing up a dog strapped with explosives as a police convoy drove by."

"the disfigured bodies of nine Shiite sheep dealers were brought home to their native Karbala province"

"on Saturday the bodies of five poultry dealers were found south of Baghdad, after the discovery of six bodies north of the capital the previous day."



I don't know if we can tell if these are typical insurgent actions or not, but anyways...

I think it's clear that many of these examples should not be considered legitimate targets... do I have agreement on this?


Do people think police forces should be legitimate targets?

What about off-duty military personel?



We see that frequently there are civilian casualties. Do you think insurgents appear to be trying to avoid civilian casualties in attacks against the police and military? Or are the Iraqi government and coalition forces negligent for placing legitimate targets near population centers? Or, are these simply acceptable casualties?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

this business of targeting the populations began in the late 19th century, and has been a terrible turn of strategy. Prior to that, populations were considered prizes for the victor, not to be harmed.

A legitimate target would be anyone bearing arms (government-related or not), or in some kind of armed service (yes, including police), or government officials or infrastructure.

While it is impossible to ensure that civilians are not injured or killed during a conflict, every best effort should be made to avoid it.

It is my belief that the US military does the best that they can to engage targets in a traditional battlefield setting, and not within civilian centers. Because they are nice people? No, because that is what they are best equiped to handle. That is what they have been built to do - to fight conventional scenarios where civilians are not involved. To deny them that ability is to create an uneven playing field, which is exactly what the insurgents are trying to do. That is also why the insurgents could care less about how many civilians are killed.

 

[Art]

This thread is to investigate the question of what constitutes a legitimate target by resistance forces. The main scenario under consideration is Iraq, but I imagine much would apply to the Israeli-Pakistani situation as well.

Is this a mistype or is there something new starting we don't know about?

 

[Art]

this business of targeting the populations began in the late 19th century, and has been a terrible turn of strategy. Prior to that, populations were considered prizes for the victor, not to be harmed.

You've obviously never heard of Ghengis Khan He made a policy of slaughtering the entire families of those he killed during his conquests to ensure nobody ever came looking for revenge. Mmmm a little like Bush jr

 

[Art]

Here we go. We now have it officially from D. Rumsfeld himself that the Iraqi insurgents fighting against invaders are NOT terrorists. Russ et al please take note.

MR. RUSSERT: The Times of London reports this morning that there have been two meetings between Iraqi and U.S. officials and some members of the insurgency. Is that accurate?

SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Oh, I would doubt it. I think there have probably been many more than that. I mean, think what's happening in Afghanistan. President Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban, not the ones with blood on their hands, but the others, and he's saying, "Come into the government. Let's stop killing Afghan people," and the same thing's going on in Iraq. We see the government of Iraq is sovereign. They're the ones that are reaching out to the people who are not supporting the government. They're not going to try to bring in the people with blood on their hands, for sure, but they certainly are reaching out continuously, and we help to facilitate those from time to time.

MR. RUSSERT: Is that negotiating with terrorists?

SEC'Y RUMSFELD: No, no. Look, look, you've got a situation in Iraq where you've got terrorists over here, you've got Sunni insurgents here, the Ba'athist types, and then you've got people who haven't decided what they're going to do, and then you have people supporting the government. Then you have the government. And the goal is to get people to all move towards the support of the government. And it isn't a matter of negotiating with terrorists.

As everybody knows the US never negotiates with terrorists and so Rumsfeld has rightly confirmed these Iraqi insurgents are not terrorists.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

You've obviously never heard of Ghengis Khan He made a policy of slaughtering the entire families of those he killed during his conquests to ensure nobody ever came looking for revenge. Mmmm a little like Bush jr

yes, but this was not a policy that caught on the way it did in Europe, Asia and the US. For the first time, weapons were designed whose sole purpose was to eliminate the mass populace. That had never happened before.

 

[Hurkyl]

Government officials? Really? Any official, no matter how low level or innocuous his position?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Government officials? Really? Any official, no matter how low level or innocuous his position?

in the course of a war, the enemy government may have other installations in support of their own war effort - logistical bases, for example, or power plants, etc. the bombing of these facilities may be deemed advantageous, and so unfortunately low-level officials (clerks, workers, etc.) may be destroyed with them.

i see this as justified both morally and according to the prescribed rules of war.

 

[Hurkyl]

So it's not that the officials are targets, but that their loss is acceptable because of their presence in something that is acceptable. You wouldn't, say, condone killing each of the plant's workers in their homes while they sleep, right?

 

[Art]

Legitimate targets for resistance fighters;
1) The armed forces of whomever it is they are resisting whether off-duty or not.
2) Collaborators - the level of retribution depending on the degree of collaboration. eg French women who fraternised with German troops were 'tarred and feathered'
3) Military structures - bases, barracks etc..
4) Military logistic supplies
5) Infrastructure useful to their enemy (roads, bridges etc. used for troop deployment)
6) Detention centres used to hold or interrogate captive resistance fighters
7) Enemy intelligence agents
8) Senior political figures of the enemy

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Legitimate targets for resistance fighters;

shouldn't the rules be the same whether they are resistance fighters or not?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

So it's not that the officials are targets, but that their loss is acceptable because of their presence in something that is acceptable. You wouldn't, say, condone killing each of the plant's workers in their homes while they sleep, right?

I would see no problem with that. If they are working for an enemy government (or terrorist group) in a state of war, they are fair game.

If they were civilians not directly employed by a government, military or terrorist organization that would be a different story.

 

[Smurf]

what about conscripts and forced labour?

 

[Pengwuino]

what about conscripts and forced labour?

they are legitamate because you don't really have a clue whether someone volunteered or was forced to fight.

I think one thing the OP didnt take note of is that a victim is different then a target. If a child gets killed in Iraq, its normally because he was an unintended victim of something... not because he was the target

 

[Art]

shouldn't the rules be the same whether they are resistance fighters or not?

Yes, absolutely. So in my mind anyone who targets non-combatant civilians either deliberately as a strategy or as a consequence of reckless attacks against legitimate targets are commiting terrorist acts. Thus by this definition Zarqawi's group has committed terrorist acts and some of the American attacks have been terrorist acts as evidenced by the high civilian death toll wreaked by both sides. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
I see the Iraq conflict as shades of grey. It is Bush's simplistic 'Us 'good' them 'Bad'' that irritates me. To my mind Iraqi nationalists who do not target civilians and are fighting against invading forces hold the highest moral ground of all the parties in the conflict.

 

[russ_watters]

Do people think police forces should be legitimate targets?

What about off-duty military personel?

As far as international law is concerned (ie, the Geneva Conventions), the answer to the first question is a little sticky, but the second is a straightforward no, if by "off duty" you mean away on leave or outside the base for non-military purposes. quetzalcoatl9's summary of the current standard is pretty good.

Here we go. We now have it officially from D. Rumsfeld himself that the Iraqi insurgents fighting against invaders are NOT terrorists. Russ et al please take note.

Art, the second quote from Rummy says quite clearly that there is more than one group that we're fighting - some can reasonably be classified as insurgents, some cannot. We're negotiating with the legitimate insurgents (apparently), but not the terrorists.

So it's not that the officials are targets, but that their loss is acceptable because of their presence in something that is acceptable.

Ehh, its a little more specific than that. Yes, the government installations are important, but also, in the same way that you would try hard to kill a general and his staff, you'd try hard to kill the Sec Def or President and his staff. Essentially, the personal targets are limited to the military chain of command and their staff or government workers with military value.

Yes, absolutely. So in my mind anyone who targets non-combatant civilians either deliberately as a strategy or as a consequence of reckless attacks against legitimate targets are commiting terrorist acts. Thus by this definition Zarqawi's group has committed terrorist acts and some of the American attacks have been terrorist acts as evidenced by the high civilian death toll wreaked by both sides.

What is your definition of "high civilian death toll"? The civilian death toll for this war was likely the lowest for this intensity of conflict in the history of warfare. Ie, historically, the civilian:military death ratio for a war where a country is invaded and taken over is typically extremely high. Often higher than 1:1. Best guess, the ratio for this war was something on the order of 0.03:1. (based on an estimated 15,000 civilian deaths and 500,000 Iraqi military)

I see the Iraq conflict as shades of grey.

It appears to me that you see actions involving others in shades of grey and actions involving the US directly in black and black.

 

[Art]

Art, the second quote from Rummy says quite clearly that there is more than one group that we're fighting - some can reasonably be classified as insurgents, some cannot. We're negotiating with the legitimate insurgents (apparently), but not the terrorists.

Which Russ if you check back on my posts has been the point I have consistantly made. The act of firing at invading troops does not a terrorist make. Good to see you have now come round to agree with me on this.

What is your definition of "high civilian death toll"? The civilian death toll for this war was likely the lowest for this intensity of conflict in the history of warfare.

Again if you read what I have written I referred to individual acts as possibly constituting terrorism. For example if you flatten an apartment block with 500 lb bombs because you suspect (or even know) there is an insurgent inside, resulting in the deaths of civilians then to my mind this falls into the realm of reckless disregard of civilian life. Another example would be the 500 civilians murdered when the US military targeted an air-raid shelter in Gulf War part 1.

It appears to me that you see actions involving others in shades of grey and actions involving the US directly in black and black.

To save you from having to 'think' about what I meant I have spelled it out quite clearly; that the same rules apply to all sides. If someone on this forum tried to justify the mass murder of civilians by suicide bombers (which you will note no-one has) I would take issue with them just as I take issue with people who try to justify excessive and/or mis-directed force when used by the US.

Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, before committing suicide at the Nuremberg Trials, said:

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

 

[Rev Prez]

This thread is to investigate the question of what constitutes a legitimate target by resistance forces.

When this war is over, the insurgents will have to answer to the Iraqi government for their conduct. The Iraqi government has already decided that the insurrection is criminal, has and continues to try and convict insurgents on a range of charges from criminal possession of weapons and explosives to murder, treason and crimes against humanity. There is no internationally recognized legal status for these insurgents. So, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a legitimate target for insurgents to strike.

The main scenario under consideration is Iraq, but I imagine much would apply to the Israeli-Palestinian situation as well.

Same thing applies. Politically, there is pressure for Israel to release terrorists, but there is no general principle in law that prevents Israel from detaining, trying and convicting terrorists in criminal courts.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

When this war is over, the insurgents will have to answer to the Iraqi government for their conduct. The Iraqi government has already decided that the insurrection is criminal, has and continues to try and convict insurgents on a range of charges from criminal possession of weapons and explosives to murder, treason and crimes against humanity. There is no internationally recognized legal status for these insurgents. So, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a legitimate target for insurgents to strike.

Don't you think whether or not the insurgents have to answer to the current Iraqi government will depend on who wins the ongoing war? Afterall I don't remember the Vichy government in France getting to put the French resistance fighters on trial after WW2 or for that matter I don't remember hearing of George Washington being tried for treason by the British after the American insurrection of 1770 - 1783

 

[Rev Prez]

Don't you think whether or not the insurgents have to answer to the current Iraqi government will depend on who wins the ongoing war?

I have no desire to discuss endgame in Iraq with you. Just to be clear, that means I'm not interested in what you personally have to say about it. That said, please go on.

Rev Prez

 

[arildno]

When this war is over, the insurgents will have to answer to the Iraqi government for their conduct. The Iraqi government has already decided that the insurrection is criminal, has and continues to try and convict insurgents on a range of charges from criminal possession of weapons and explosives to murder, treason and crimes against humanity. There is no internationally recognized legal status for these insurgents. So, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a legitimate target for insurgents to strike.

Bogus argument.
On 7.June 1940, the national Norwegian forces capitulated to the Germans while the Royal Family and the ministers of the pre-invasion regime fled to England (neither the ministers nor the King had signed any such capitulation terms).

A puppet regime under Vidkun Quisling branded the continuing militia fighters as traitors and terrorists who attacked upstanding law enforcement personell.
(occupying German forces and Norwegian police officers).
These insurgents were, however, by the vast majority of the people regarded as "freedom fighters".

Since Nazi Germany actually lost the war, and Quisling's puppet regime was swept away, those insurgent became (in my opinion, justifiedly) celebrated war heroes of the resistance movements, whereas (equally justifiedly) Quisling was executed for high treason.

Please note the previous Baath regime in Iraq has not signed any peace treaty with US.

 

[Rev Prez]

Please note the previous Baath regime in Iraq has not signed any peace treaty with US.

And please note I have no intention of entertaining nonsense drawing analogies between the former regime fighters and anti-Nazi resistance groups or the present Iraqi government and Nazi puppet regimes.

Rev Prez

 

[arildno]

You are a complete idiot, aren't you?
What brand of washing machine did they put your brain in?

 

[Burnsys]

As far as international law is concerned (ie, the Geneva Conventions), the answer to the first question is a little sticky, but the second is a straightforward no, if by "off duty" you mean away on leave or outside the base for non-military purposes. quetzalcoatl9's summary of the current standard is pretty good. Art, the second quote from Rummy says quite clearly that there is more than one group that we're fighting - some can reasonably be classified as insurgents, some cannot. We're negotiating with the legitimate insurgents (apparently), but not the terrorists. Ehh, its a little more specific than that. Yes, the government installations are important, but also, in the same way that you would try hard to kill a general and his staff, you'd try hard to kill the Sec Def or President and his staff. Essentially, the personal targets are limited to the military chain of command and their staff or government workers with military value. What is your definition of "high civilian death toll"? The civilian death toll for this war was likely the lowest for this intensity of conflict in the history of warfare. Ie, historically, the civilian:military death ratio for a war where a country is invaded and taken over is typically extremely high. Often higher than 1:1. Best guess, the ratio for this war was something on the order of 0.03:1. (based on an estimated 15,000 civilian deaths and 500,000 Iraqi military) It appears to me that you see actions involving others in shades of grey and actions involving the US directly in black and black.

When you say out of duty military personel. you mean for example, Retired militarys? or Not active at the moment, becouse they are slepping for example?. Remember that is common for america to pay retired military personel to work as mercenaries, i think those should be legitimate targets to.

Also the police and security forces, About civilian administration buildings. or oil pipelines, they are legitimate targets to.. remember shock and awe, america destroyed electricity stations, water suply, etc. etc...

 

[Rev Prez]

What brand of washing machine did they put your brain in?

The kind where we don't dishonestly compare the Iraq war to the character and conduct of occupations attached to military contests between great powers. Put another way, I'm not going to waste my time arguing a point with someone who can't approach it seriously.

Rev Prez

 

[arildno]

US attacked Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts and outright lies, and is to be considered a sheer aggressor nation here.

It is completely different from their invasion of Afghanistan, which I wholeheartedly supported.

No, I won't bother to waste a moron's time, so goodbye.

 

[Art]

I have no desire to discuss endgame in Iraq with you. Just to be clear, that means I'm not interested in what you personally have to say about it. That said, please go on.

Rev Prez

That's peculiar, you raised the subject but now don't want to discuss it. Guess you just realized you were purporting an opinion which wasn't backed up by historical fact and so decided to beat a rapid retreat. Still that's fine, I accept your surrender.

 

[Rev Prez]

US attacked Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts and outright lies, and is to be considered a sheer aggressor nation here.

I don't really care what you have to say on the ethical point. The fact remains that the US is not in a proxy war with great powers in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases cited here, insurgencies erupted in areas under military contest by either Germany and Russia or Germany and the Western allies. An argument structured around the principle that "the Iraq insurgency will triumph" because they did in Norway is not only insultingly stupid, but ignores what happened in the Baltic states during and after Russian occupation.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

That's peculiar

No, it's not. It's no secret that you have an obsessive fixation on what you perceive to be America's sins. I have no desire to discuss certain things with you or any of your kind. It's that simple.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

No, it's not. It's no secret that you have an obsessive fixation on what you perceive to be America's sins.

Can you provide the mathematical data to demonstrate the veracity of your statement. Afterall I wouldn't want you to be unfaithful to your own principles

I have no desire to discuss certain things with you or any of your kind. It's that simple.

Now, now, throwing your rattle out of your pram because you can't win the argument won't impress your fellow Bushies.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

for that matter I don't remember hearing of George Washington being tried for treason by the British after the American insurrection of 1770 - 1783

Ah, but George Washington did not lose the war, so that argument really does not apply. Had George Washington lost the Revolutionary War, then he most certainly would have had to answer for the insurgency to a Pro-British gov. in America.

Of course, it would be absurd to even compare George Washington to the current insurgents in Iraq, since he was actually fighting a real war, not stuffing bombs in garbage cans to blow up civilians, IRA-style.

 

[Burnsys]

Ah, but George Washington did not lose the war, so that argument really does not apply. Had George Washington lost the Revolutionary War, then he most certainly would have had to answer for the insurgency to a Pro-British gov. in America.

Of course, it would be absurd to even compare George Washington to the current insurgents in Iraq, since he was actually fighting a real war, not stuffing bombs in garbage cans to blow up civilians, IRA-style.

And you can't even compare the insurgents in irak fighting againts the more powerfull army in the wordl and against missiles that came from the sky at night

 

[Art]

Ah, but George Washington did not lose the war, so that argument really does not apply. Had George Washington lost the Revolutionary War, then he most certainly would have had to answer for the insurgency to a Pro-British gov. in America.

If you had taken the time to read what I wrote you would see that what you say is precisely the point I was making. It's the victor who gets to decide who was right and who was wrong. Good to see you agreeing with me for once.

 

[Art]

Of course, it would be absurd to even compare George Washington to the current insurgents in Iraq, since he was actually fighting a real war, not stuffing bombs in garbage cans to blow up civilians, IRA-style.

A real war? Meaning what? George Washington led a rebel army against his lawful government to seize power. You do realize it wasn't America vs Britain. In fact many americans were loyalists and fought with Britain (100,000 had to flee the country after the war ended) whilst France still smarting from the 7 years war which they had lost to England helped the rebels.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

A real war? Meaning what? George Washington led a rebel army against his lawful government to seize power. You do realize it wasn't America vs Britain. In fact many americans were loyalists and fought with Britain (100,000 had to flee the country after the war ended) whilst France still smarting from the 7 years war which they had lost to England helped the rebels.

Yes, that is all true. And, without the support of the French it is unlikely that the Revolutionary War would have turned out in the USA's favor.

By "real war" I guess I meant things like:

a) a large group of people assembling
b) the use of things like guns, cannons, etc.
c) an actual command structure, however loose it may be

a single person dropping a home-made bomb in a garbage can to kill 12 civilians is not exactly "real war", to me at least.