[R-G] Seeds of terrorism sown in killing fields of Iraq

[Anthony Fenton]

Seeds of terrorism sown in killing fields of Iraq
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/261722

Sep 30, 2007 04:30 AM
Haroon Siddiqui

In not acknowledging the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and  
Afghans, "we are communicating to the people of the Middle East and  
beyond that we don't care about their lives. We are sowing the seeds  
of terrorism that could dwarf 9/11."

The warning comes from Professor Les Roberts of Columbia University.  
He is among a handful of experts tracking the Iraqi death toll, which  
he thinks stands at "over a million."

He is the co-author of the famous Johns Hopkins University study,  
released last fall, estimating the Iraqi dead at 654,965. Since then,  
ORB, a British polling company, has pegged the toll at 1.2 million.  
Both studies were based on deaths as reported by households.

The United States and its allies do not count Iraqi or Afghan  
casualties, only those of their own troops. And George W. Bush has  
acknowledged only 30,000 Iraqi dead.

That enrages Roberts. He told me on the phone that "being forthright  
about the human cost of the war is essential, and in our own long- 
term interests. Avoiding the issue will likely come back to haunt us."

Plus, "how can military and civilian leaders comment intelligently  
about security trends, if they aren't detecting most of the 5,000  
plus violent deaths that occur per week?"

Roberts – an expert on zones of conflict, having worked in the Congo  
(1999-2002) and Rwanda (1994) – is skeptical of Iraq Body Count, the  
British group that tracks Iraqi deaths by relying on media and other  
sources.

"A study of 13 war-affected countries presented at a recent Harvard  
conference found that more than 80 per cent of violent deaths in  
conflicts go unreported.

"Media and government reports catch only the tip of the iceberg."

Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire makes a  
similar argument in the case of Afghanistan. He tracks civilian  
deaths there on his website, Afghan Victim Memorial Project.

"The American military and political establishment does not want  
people to talk about deaths," he says, and the media just go along.

Who should we hold responsible for all the civilian carnage?

First, not all the casualties are caused by U.S. and other coalition  
forces. In Iraq, an increasing number of deaths are attributable to  
Sunni-Shiite sectarianism; to collateral damage from raging battles  
between various militias; and to criminal gangs taking advantage of  
the breakdown of law and order.

Sunnis and Shiites were not at each other's throats until the recent  
collapse of the social order. The counter-argument is that they  
weren't because Saddam Hussein had kept them in check. The counter- 
counter-argument is that they had lived in peace long before him.

Still, under the Geneva Conventions, the coalition forces are  
responsible for ensuring the safety of the population. But they  
transferred sovereignty to the Iraqis under a 2004 Security Council  
resolution.

Therefore, technically, it is the Iraqi government that has "ultimate  
responsibility for the safety and security of Iraqis," says Glen  
Rangwala, a professor at Cambridge University and an expert on  
international law.

"If that government does not appropriately regulate the actions of  
the coalition military, legal responsibility lies at its door," he  
told me.

"A counter-argument would go that in some sense, the U.S. and  
coalition forces have violated the Security Council resolution" by  
overriding the Iraqi government.

Examples include the detention of five Iranian diplomats in Irbil in  
January and the construction of the Baghdad security wall. The Iraqi  
government opposed both.

Given that, "one could argue that the U.S./coalition forces revert to  
being an army of occupation," in which case the Fourth Geneva  
Convention and the responsibilities that go with that would apply.

"Even if this is not accepted, then it would be more uncontroversial  
to say that international law has a poor level of specification on  
what constitutes a military occupation, what constitutes a puppet  
government set up by an occupying force, and what constitutes a  
legitimate handover of power to end an occupation."

Do similar arguments apply to Afghanistan? "Yes."

Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus, appears  
Thursday in World & Comment and Sunday in the A section.  
hsiddiq at thestar.ca