Insurgents Or Just Plain Murderers?
By Randall Nunn (12/22/03)
Much of the media now refers to the violence occurring in Iraq as an "insurgency." Webster's Dictionary defines insurgency as "a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency."
What is going on in Iraq today seems to me not to be an "insurgency" and the use of that term gives an undeserving air of respectability to the violence being committed by the fedayeen and former Iraqi soldiers who shed their uniforms rather than confront America and Britain's military, as well as by assorted terrorists and criminals. The former military people who were unable to stop the coalition forces are continuing the war as best they can in guerilla fashion while the terrorists are engaged in a jihad against the West and against individual freedom. This hardly represents a "revolt" in the sense that one normally understands a revolt.
The use of the word "insurgency" does, however, provide the media and others using the term an opportunity to subtly suggest that these killers of innocents and non-combatants are something akin to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War and that they are fighting for some ideal or national interest. It also leads the public to lose sight of who these people really are and the nature of the continuing fight going on in Iraq. All of which furthers the liberal media's goal of undermining support for the Bush administration's policies and actions in Iraq.
Organized and coordinated actions by former members of Saddam Hussein's military and secret police, now operating without uniforms or legal authority, is simply a continuation of the battle by other means and in no way represents a spontaneous and popular uprising by citizens fighting an oppressive invader. Perhaps this activity should be referred to as "thuggery" or "terrorism" rather than in terms that suggest that it is in any way noble, popular or widely supported. In the United States, we have organized crime, organized drug rings and environmental extremists, all of whom use murder, arson and bombs from time to time against the government and innocent civilians. Is this an "insurgency"? Surely not. So why do we call the Iraqi fedayeen and terrorist violence an "insurgency"? Maybe because no one has come up with a better name for it, but the use of the word insurgency gives a smattering of credibility to people who deserve none.
The American people need to fully understand the nature of the enemy in Iraq and keep that in mind through this entire difficult period. We should call this evil violence by its true name and not try to foster "understanding" of these people or acceptance of their motives. This is not to say that we need to become "jingoistic" or paint our actions as a self-righteous crusade to bring American ideals to the world whether the rest of the world wants it or not. The ultimate, overriding necessity here is the protection of American citizens and our way of life. If, in the process, we can liberate a country from a vicious pack of thugs, so much the better. And when those thugs shed their uniforms and go underground to fight the liberators in a campaign of terror by killing them and anyone who supports or assists them, it hardly qualifies as an "insurgency". Let's call a spade a spade, especially now that we have captured the ace of spades himself and have evidence that he orchestrated this campaign of violence. When the world sees, as it will in the course of the trial of Saddam Hussein, the depravity and horror of the Hussein regime and the thousands and thousands of murders, rapes, mutilations and tortures, hopefully it will not think that supporters of such evil are merely "insurgents." They are the lowest of the low and far from insurgents. The only thing these people are in revolt against is human decency and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
