A common cliché in terrorism studies is to begin one’s
argument by noting that “terrorism” has no widely-accepted definition. In fact, identifying this cliché as a cliché is itself clichéd. But if there’s something that scholars,
legal experts, and policy-makers agree on in theory, it is that terrorism by
definition targets citizens.
You know who else agrees on this point? The Taliban’s Mullah Omar:
Taliban foot soldiers will face sharia justice if they kill or injure innocent civilians without taking precautions, the fugitive leader of the Afghan insurgency has warned.
Mullah Omar, the Taliban's supreme cleric, released an 1,800-word statement that dwelled at length on the need to protect civilians in a sign of the insurgency's growing defensiveness on the issue…
The decree said: "Scholars should be employed every now and then to preach protection of civilian life, wealth and honour to mujahideen and promote virtue… All civilian casualties which are caused or are believed to be caused by mujahideen should be reported to the superiors."
It also called for investigations by the movement's "legal offices" of cases where locals say civilians have been hurt by landmines, suicide bombings or other attacks. "If it is irrefutably proven that the blood of innocent Muslims is spilled by the negligence of mujahideen then a penalty should be implemented in accordance with sharia," the statement said. The family of the victims should also be compensated, it suggested.
This could be an effort on the part of the Taliban to soften
its image. With "2014" looming, Taliban leaders may be positioning themselves for
a future settlement. Killing civilians will not only alienate them from the
Afghan people, but acting like terrorists makes it
more difficult for them to enter into peace talks, especially with Americans.
The attempt, however, may be moot for a number of reasons. First, in the
decade since 9/11, the Taliban have become irrevocably linked to al Qaeda. This
will make it very difficult for any U.S. administration to enter into talks
with the group. If Obama were to do so, Republicans will accuse of surrendering
to those who attacked us on 9/11. Democrats are also heavily invested in the al
Qaeda-Taliban link. After all, Obama’s primary critique of Bush’s Iraq policy
was that it distracted us from the “real enemy” in Afghanistan.
The second reason why Mullah Omar’s decree won’t matter is
the inherent ambiguity of the term civilian—which is often taken to mean
“innocent.” Insurgents and counter-insurgents rarely agree on who is a "civilian" and who is a "combatant." Take for example, the military and police recruits who have been targeted by
both the Afghan and Pakistani Talibans. From the perspective of
insurgents—whether they be in Northern Ireland or Iraq—such recruits are legitimate
targets: by joining the illegitimate army, an individual renounces their
non-combatant status. This is often so even if they have yet to put on the uniform. Such attacks are generally seen as acts of “terrorism” by
Western militaries, governments, media, and citizenries. Average
Afghans and Pakistanis may also agree, especially since the victims of such
attacks are more than likely poor young men with few other opportunities for employment.
What about the American contract workers killed in last month’s suicide attack in Kabul? These individuals were not “combatants”—they
were not members of the military engaged in actual fighting. But, from the perspective
of insurgents, these individuals are anything but “innocent.” Merely working
for the military occupation can make a civilian the target of the insurgency.
In Northern Ireland, the IRA at times targeted independent contractors and
workers involved in building British military bases. The rationale
given then remains common to most insurgencies: by working for the occupation,
you are culpable in its perpetuation. But most of us outside the insurgency would disagree: These people were simply going to work like normal civilians.
Finally, in practice “terrorism”—despite the definitional
niceties of academicians—means much more than just targeting civilians. Since Iraq, for example, any attack on American combatants is treated by administrations and the media as an act of terrorism. After all, we’re
at war with “the terrorists,” so those who fight us must be guilty. According to Mark Perry, one of the crucial barriers to negotiating an end to violence in Iraq's Anbar Province was the American military's penchant for labeling all insurgents as "terrorists." So long as the Taliban continues its insurgency against NATO forces they will be identified as “terrorists,” and therefore excluded from discussions. Of course, as Anbar demonstrates, military necessity can contribute significantly to definitional nuance.
Then, there's this problem: Elements of "the Taliban" may not have received Mullah Omar's memo.
To sum up, the next time someone says "Muslims have never condemned terrorism," you can point to Mullah Omar. Or you can just cite any of the countless legitimate Muslim clerics and intellectuals who have already condemned terrorism.
Then, there's this problem: Elements of "the Taliban" may not have received Mullah Omar's memo.
To sum up, the next time someone says "Muslims have never condemned terrorism," you can point to Mullah Omar. Or you can just cite any of the countless legitimate Muslim clerics and intellectuals who have already condemned terrorism.
