The "insurgents" in Iraq aren't really "insurging." They are blowing up large numbers of random people.
The insurgency in Iraq is not blowing up random people; it is specifically targeting certain groups (soldiers, government officials, perceived collaborators). There are specific political goals to this movement, and the term "insurgent" describes those political goals better than "terrorist," which only describes the tactics. (Insurgent has a long history as a synonym for rebel.)
Here's a parallel: If we were Iraqis, we could talk about "the American security forces," or we could talk about "the Americans killing Iraqis." Which is more accurate? The first describes the goals; the second describes the techniques. We need both to give us the full story.
I agree, although I could see how the author might be making his point partly on a literal breakdown of the word (i.e. "surging in"). Thanks for noting that.
If we assume that the object of the insurgency is to overthrow a particular government from below, then I think it still works even if a large number of the insurgents are foreign and even if many of their victims are local.
It couldn't really be called an invasion; there's no traditional military advance, it's not undertaken by foreign governments, there's no attempt at occupation, and the local element is still very strong. The movement did not begin with foreigners, nor does it have foreign domination as an object.
The first parallel I can think of offhand is the Spanish Civil War, which involved large numbers of foreign fighters on both sides. Americans and other foreigners were killing Spaniards, but it was still a civil war rather than an invasion. (It began, I suppose, as an insurgency or rebellion, then grew.)
By the way, I just found an article that may explain some of my insistence that we can't just glibly talk about "terrorists" in Iraq. Eliot Cohen, a military historian who supported the invasion but thinks the occupation has been mismanaged, angrily expresses "disbelief at the length of time it took to call an insurgency by its name."
6 comments:
I especially liked his note that "We have sin, but there are no sinners."
I like it, but he is wrong on one point:
The "insurgents" in Iraq aren't really "insurging." They are blowing up large numbers of random people.
The insurgency in Iraq is not blowing up random people; it is specifically targeting certain groups (soldiers, government officials, perceived collaborators). There are specific political goals to this movement, and the term "insurgent" describes those political goals better than "terrorist," which only describes the tactics. (Insurgent has a long history as a synonym for rebel.)
Here's a parallel: If we were Iraqis, we could talk about "the American security forces," or we could talk about "the Americans killing Iraqis." Which is more accurate? The first describes the goals; the second describes the techniques. We need both to give us the full story.
I agree, although I could see how the author might be making his point partly on a literal breakdown of the word (i.e. "surging in"). Thanks for noting that.
Addressed to Wilson:
Is an "insurgent" still an insurgent if he hails from another country? And ends up killing not the "invaders," but mostly the "home folks?"
If we assume that the object of the insurgency is to overthrow a particular government from below, then I think it still works even if a large number of the insurgents are foreign and even if many of their victims are local.
It couldn't really be called an invasion; there's no traditional military advance, it's not undertaken by foreign governments, there's no attempt at occupation, and the local element is still very strong. The movement did not begin with foreigners, nor does it have foreign domination as an object.
The first parallel I can think of offhand is the Spanish Civil War, which involved large numbers of foreign fighters on both sides. Americans and other foreigners were killing Spaniards, but it was still a civil war rather than an invasion. (It began, I suppose, as an insurgency or rebellion, then grew.)
By the way, I just found an article that may explain some of my insistence that we can't just glibly talk about "terrorists" in Iraq. Eliot Cohen, a military historian who supported the invasion but thinks the occupation has been mismanaged, angrily expresses "disbelief at the length of time it took to call an insurgency by its name."
Post a Comment