January 30, 2005: No more "insurgents," please

In the wake of the Iraqi election, the use of the term "insurgents" by the mainstream media -- a conscious/unconscious attempt to cloak a rag-tag amalgamation of fascists, jihadists and common criminals in the romantic mantle of Pancho Villa -- should now be placed in the junk pile. "Insurgents," in most historical uses, has referred to groups trying to upset an illegitimate or semi-legitimate regime. That is no longer the case, if it ever was. It's time for the mainstream media to start calling the terrorists by their true names and ideological identities, such as they are. There is no justification any longer for the use of the euphemism "insurgents," unless you are writing pro-fascist propaganda.

UPDATE: The time has come for the press corps to admit that they have done a terrible job with the whole story. As Christopher Hitchens said this afternoon on the "Friends of Democracy" CSPAN airing: "The majority of the western press placed its bet on the word 'quagmire' and have not been able to get off it." No kidding. Only moments after he spoke, the host interviewed Alissa Rubin, the LA Times chief in Baghdad, and it was like pulling teeth to get her to admit pleasure in the electoral triumph of the Iraqi people. She sounded almost embarrassed. How sad and how pathetic.

The reification continues here.

MORE: Austin Bay - writing back in November - already knew the real name for "insurgents." He also knows his rock and roll.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

The termonology game is a problem. I don't much like terrorists since it casts too wide a net and identifies a tactic rather then the actual philosophy we are fighting.

Islamo-fascist is better, but it seems like a clummsily constructed psuedo word.

Wahabists is most accurate (ignoring the Ba'athis dead-enders in Iraq of course), but since, at least until we get our ducks in a row, Saudi Arabia is a nominal ally it won't be used.

I am leaning towards Salafist at the moment.

Posted by: ambisinistral at January 30, 2005 3:31 PM

I was out driving about 30 minutes ago and NPR, at the end of what I would say was a fairly upbeat news segment on the election, managed to get a Saddam loyalist on tape who claimed the elections weren't legitimate because Hussein wasn't on the ballot. I wasn't so much surprised that there are Iraqis who feel like that as I was that NPR would think their viewpoint needed airing. Bizarre.

Posted by: Pat Curley at January 30, 2005 3:50 PM

Sad and pathetic is right. By attacking Bush so vehemently, Leftists have painted themselves into a corner. It has to be humiliating.

Posted by: ahem at January 30, 2005 3:54 PM

I'm sorry--but does ANY sentient being give a s**t about what the MSM says about anything? They are akin to the cockroaches scurrying about underfoot as the jurassic period comes to an end. They will servive but only as excrement eating vermin.

Posted by: RogerA at January 30, 2005 4:07 PM

Most of the Iraqis seem to have no problem calling them terrorists.

And I saw Hitchens on C-span, he gave them hell. He really did.

Posted by: Terrye at January 30, 2005 4:12 PM

Yeah, Hitch chewed the msm a great big new one. It was great. C-SPAN was really enjoyable today. Spirit of America hosted a forum, and many Iraqis got to have their say, in person and over the phone, throughout the day. Very moving.

Posted by: Stace at January 30, 2005 4:21 PM

Marc Cooper is addressing press failures from a different perspective (he is an accomplished leftist journalist and author).

His new column in the LA times and his current blog story>/a> and thread address the failure of the media contraption (as seen by a smartand honest leftist).

Terminology - we need a new word in this era of asymmetrical warfare by non-state entities. These people are, by the rules of war, illegal combatants subject to summary execution. That isn't true of real insurgents (as long as they wear identifying clothing - an armband is enough). Maybe we should call them the "targets." Or we could adopt the Chinese practice, which would allow us to call them "organ donors" - they are mostly young and healthy. Seriously, I think "terrorist" is the appropriate appelation, because their tactics are primarily terroristic.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at January 30, 2005 4:40 PM

My paper also got "Timesed" with the de rigeur headline about election violence and then not only an article about the old chestnut Abu Ghraib but a picture of poster girl Lyndie England!!

But it's a glorious day and no one can deny it. Fred Barnes quoted ITM's blog and almost startec crying today. I second that emotion.

Posted by: PJ at January 30, 2005 4:49 PM

My main reason for not liking terrorist is that the term distances itself from the Islamic identity of the salafists and wahabis. Call a spade a spade. The enemies need to be clarified rather than obscured by the terminiology used to label them.

Posted by: ambisinistral at January 30, 2005 4:49 PM

ambi...

I think that is true for a general discussion of the war on terror, but in the case of Iraq, a significant part of the opposition is not doing it for any religious reasons, but simply to re-instate a fascist regime (which was officially secular except when convenient to pretent a muslim identity).

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at January 30, 2005 5:01 PM

Haven't posted for quite a while but...

Not only should the MSM stop glorifying the Baathists and Jihadis with the term insurgents, they need to start taking to task their political friends in the Democratic Party. It's time stop treating Edward Kennedy as royality and start treating him like the bum he is. His comments today are indicative of support for the legitmacy of the Sunni thugs who have attempted to prevent these elections. It is time for some MSM outlet to state quite openly that Teddy's recent comments make him the Joseph P. Kennedy of the GWOT. His sympathies are entirely with the enemy.

Posted by: jerry at January 30, 2005 5:13 PM

First of all, we must distinguish between the secularist Baathist who are simply trying to regain power---and the Islamic nihilists. It is utterly absurd to conflate the two totally different groups. The Baathists care not a whit about dying for Allah. Drinking single malt scotches and chasing women other than their wives is their primary choice of entertainment. They must now be realizing the futility of their violence and ready to seek compromise with the wider Iraqi community. The nihilists, however, enjoy murder and destruction as ends to themselves. This is why we must capture or kill them. They are existentially rabid dogs unable to ever again to rejoin normal society. No, describing them as reactionaries doesn't quite cut it for me. I much prefer the nihilist label.

Posted by: David Thomson at January 30, 2005 5:17 PM

There is a perfectly good word describing Islamic terrorists, with impeccable Middle Eastern credentials: “assassins”. Alas, this word was assimilated into the language some time ago and now the meaning is a bit different than what we seek to express now.

So, I guess I will have to stick with more descriptive term: an Islamic terrorist.

Posted by: Katherine at January 30, 2005 5:24 PM

Saddam trained his fadayeen like terrorists and the people were indeed terrified of them. So whether we are dealing with some Baathist that wants his old life back, a jihadi or some combination of the two for all intents and purposes these guys are terrorists to the folks they are trying to kill.

Which the Iraqi people and the coalition soldiers.

Posted by: Terrye at January 30, 2005 5:28 PM

Everyone should go & read all the NYTIMES coverage RIGHT THIS MINUTE.

They are practically giddy over there. Forget the headlines; as Kaus says, the TIMES has a whole separate headline problem that's separate from the reporters.

Here's my favorite passage so far:

"I never expected so many people," Captain Bahir said, shaking his head and looking down a line of Iraqis outside the school. "I'm in charge of 30 polling places, and they are all saying the same thing. Hundreds of people are coming out to vote. One place said they there are already up to a thousand."

As he spoke, a well-dressed Iraqi man named Rashid Majid, 80, pushed his way past the guards and stepped through the schoolhouse doors.

"Get out of my way," Mr. Majid said, hurrying by. "I want to vote."

For all the choices on the ballot - there were 111 lists of candidates - the talk in Karada was less of who might win and who might lose than of the act of voting itself. And while few Iraqis professed to know exactly how democracy might end the violence, they seemed certain that they had entered a new and more decent time.

"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy," said Mr. Majid said. "We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system. If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will kill them."

I like the Iraqis.

I guess I'm going native.

Posted by: Catherine at January 30, 2005 5:28 PM

Jerry,

“It's time stop treating Edward Kennedy as royalty and start treating him like the bum he is. (…) It is time for some MSM outlet to state quite openly that Teddy's recent comments make him the Joseph P. Kennedy of the GWOT.”

We will see the Hell frozen over before any of this happens.

Posted by: Katherine at January 30, 2005 5:29 PM

ambisinistral

Salafists!

Thank you!

That is the word I'm going to use from now on.

I wish to heck I could remember what the NYU guy told me about Salafists & Salafism, but it was pretty close to: "Salafist" is the right word."

It's true that the Baathists aren't Salafists, but 'Salafist' will do nicely.

Posted by: Catherine at January 30, 2005 5:30 PM

Terrye

Jeez, I wish I'd seen that.

Better yet, I wish my husband had seen it!

I must say, the TIMES coverage has got him seriously cheered up. It's been All-Debacle-All-The-Time around here, so he's loving the vote. He had only a couple of minutes of begrudgery, then got happy.

Posted by: Catherine at January 30, 2005 5:38 PM

I notice Marc Cooper glossed over one minor detail... the Western journalists are dependent on one belligerent (a term that implies a moral parity between both parties) for transportation because the other belligerent will kill them and dance around their headless corpses on global television...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 30, 2005 5:39 PM

Are all Jihadis necessarily Salafis? Which I take to be a synonym for Wahhabi's? If not, the term "jihadis" retains the Islamic identity of the religiously motivated terrorists and works for me (i.e. Holy warriors). I could go with "Sunni death squads" for the ex-Baathists/fedayeen. (Or does that require that they form discernible, organized groups roaming the streets or something)? But I agree, I'm not fond of the term terrorist.

Posted by: Caroline at January 30, 2005 5:43 PM

Everyone: again, be sure to read the TIMES coverage, ESPECIALLY the article about the Arab press.

Overwhelmingly, Arab channels and newspapers greeted the elections as a critical event with major implications for the region, and many put significant resources into reporting on the vote, providing blanket coverage throughout the country that started about a week ago. Newspapers kept wide swaths of their pages open, and the satellite channels dedicated most of the day to coverage of the polls.

Often criticized for glorifying Iraq's violence if not inciting it, Arab news channels appeared to take particular care in their election day reporting. For many channels, the elections were treated on a par with the invasion itself, on which the major channels helped build their names.

Far from the almost nightly barrage of blood and tears, Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera, the kings of Arab news, barely showed the aftermath of the suicide bombings that occurred in the country.

Instead, the channels opted to report on the attacks in news tickers, and as part of the hourly news broadcasts, keeping their focus on coverage and analysis of the elections themselves. And the broadcasters spared no expense to provide an entire day of coverage from northern to southern Iraq.

[snip]

"Things used to be a negotiation between political parties where you scratch my back and I scratch your back," noted one commentator, Abas al-Bayati on Al Jazeera. "Now, this new government will approach all the parties as having the backing of the people. It will have legitimacy." And that legitimacy should allow the government to face down the insurgents, he added.

With the relative lack of violence, many nerves appeared calmed. Iraqis, especially, may have been emboldened by the coverage.

"What was important is that the satellite channels were taking us throughout the region, and also showed everyone how Iraqis outside Iraq were adamant and focused on voting," said Imad Hmood, editor in chief of Jordan's Al Ghad newspaper. "That was very important for people, especially Iraqis, to see."

[snip]

"There's been a collective decision [by Arab media] to treat this as a gigantic event," said Gordon Robison, director of the Middle East Media Project at the University of Southern California's Center for Public Diplomacy.

There you have it, folks.

Al Jazeera has just declared that the new Iraqi government has legitimacy.

Between Al Jazeera and John Kerry, who do you think the Arab world is going to listen to?

I never thought I'd see the day I'd appreciate anything coming out of Al Jazeera, but that was it.

http://nytimes.com/2005/01/30/international/middleeast/30cnd-pres.html?ei=5094&en=2b90438fae1f89e8&hp=&ex=1107147600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position

Posted by: Catherine at January 30, 2005 5:45 PM

Roger:

They won't stop using insurgents because if they used terrorist or Islamo fascist or Islamo Theocratic fascist or wahabbi fascist it would aid the Bush administration by making it clear why we fight. It is very hard to spout the words "we need to find a way to negotiate with the terrorists", or " we have to find a way to understand where the Islamo fascists are coming from and why they are opposing democracy' or "you know, the theocratic fascists are not being represented in the new government". To say that you would look absurd or morally bankrupt. Substitute the word insurgent and it appears very reasonable. In an attempt at pseudo- objectivity they ignore the fact that the "insurgents" kidnap innocent non-combatants and cut their heads off and try to portray both sides as equal. You would think that the stated opposition to democracy, the threats to cut off the heads of any Iraqi who voted AND do the same to their children too, would make it ok to say that at this moment it is ok for the Sunnis to be a little under represented, and lets not forget that many of these poor Sunnis have participated in the crushing of the majority of the Iraqi population. Yet that idiot Kerry states that the new government of Iraq is not legitimate because of low turnout in the Sunni areas. I know there are good Sunni's who couldn't vote because of fear of death but many Sunni's reject the notion of sharing power with the Shia and the Kurds and at this moment I don't feel that sorry for them. There will be other elections for them to vote in after the thugs have been killed.

Posted by: Kevin P at January 30, 2005 5:46 PM

Caroline

Basically, 'Salafist' works for me for reasons having to do with connotation and moral one-ups-manship.

There's another great thing posted over at the TIMES, about how the Bushies discovered via polling that the public doesn't respond to talk of a social security 'crisis' or to the idea that the crisis can be resolved by 'privatization.'

So now they're calling it 'dangers' to social security, and 'bankrupt,' and talking about 'private accounts,' which the public does respond to.

The Dems are still talking 'crisis' and 'privatization.'

'Salafist' will work great in my circles for the precise reasons that 'terrorist,' 'Baathist terrorists,' and 'isalmic terrorists' will not.

Posted by: Catherine at January 30, 2005 5:49 PM

Catherine, the only problem with Salafist is that it leaves out the other terrorists, such as Hezbollah..who are Shia.

I think.

Am I wrong about that?

The reason "Islamic terrorists" or somesuch doesn't work with your friends is that it is politically incorrect.

Tough.

Posted by: Syl at January 30, 2005 5:59 PM

The Utah Iraqi contingent convoyed down to L.A. on Friday night so they could vote this morning. I listened to some very moving interviews on our local (KSL/Salt Lake) AM radio station.

This morning, as I watched the clips of Iraqis dancing in the streets of Iraq I found myself hoping that when those folks get back up here maybe they might put together some sort of event to mark the occassion locally.

I'd like to dance in the streets with them. Even if it means my daughters will have to wear bags over their heads the rest of the school year.

History. I felt like this when the Berlin wall came down.

Posted by: TmjUtah at January 30, 2005 6:05 PM

Read this, too

Ignore the Bush-bashing; it doesn't matter.

he election in Iraq is without precedent. Never, not even in the dying days of Weimar Germany when Nazis and Communists brawled in the streets, has there been such a concerted attempt to destroy an election through violence -- with candidates unable to appear in public, election workers driven into hiding, foreign monitors forced to ''observe'' the election from a nearby country, actual voting on election day a gamble with death in at least 4 of the 18 provinces and the only people voting safely the fortunate expatriates and exiles in foreign countries.

Just as depressing as the violence in Iraq is the indifference to it abroad. Americans and Europeans who have never lifted a finger to defend their own right to vote seem not to care that Iraqis are dying for the right to choose their own leaders. Why do so few people feel even a tremor of indignation when they see poll workers gunned down in a Baghdad street? Why isn't there a trickle of applause in the press for the more than 6,000 Iraqis actually standing for political office at the risk of their lives? Have we all become so disenchanted that we need Iraqis to remind us what a free election can actually be worth?

[snip]

Liberals can't bring themselves to support freedom in Iraq lest they seem to collude with neoconservative bombast. Meanwhile, antiwar ideologues can't support the Iraqis because that would require admitting that positive outcomes can result from bad policies and worse intentions. Finally there are the ideological fools in the Arab world and even a few here at home who think the ''insurgents'' are fighting a just war against American imperialism. All this makes you wonder when the left forgot the proper name for people who bomb polling stations, kill election workers and assassinate candidates. The right name for such people is fascists.

What may also be silencing voices in support of Iraqi democracy is the conventional wisdom that has been thrown over the debate on Iraq like a fire blanket -- everyone believes that Iraq is a disaster: hence elections are doomed. As I was told by one suave European observer, with a look of self-satisfaction on his face, all that remains is the final act. We are waiting, he said, for the helicopters to lift off the last Americans from the roofs of the green zone in Baghdad.

All I've got to say is: don't hold your breath, buster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/magazine/30WWLN.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Posted by: Catherine at January 30, 2005 6:06 PM

Syl

The reason "Islamic terrorists" or somesuch doesn't work with your friends is that it is politically incorrect.

This is my point!

You pick the words that win arguments if at all possible.

Or at least throw people off balance, which is the best I can hope for here in Blueville.

Posted by: Catherine at January 30, 2005 6:10 PM

Unfortunately, to my mind, the most accurate term remains "Islamofascists". "Terrorists" is a poor choice because, as stated earlier, it refers to a tactic, not a description of their beliefs. I do not see the distinction between Baathists and Salafists, Wahabis, or Deobandis as important to the terminology. We did not spend time debating who we were fighting in World War II; the Japanese had an Emporer, the Germans had a Fuhrer, the Italians had their il Duce, but all were fascists, in the sense of vieing for a murderous dictatorship based on terrorizing the opposition.
The reason I said it was unfortunate that Islamofascism remians the most accurate term for our enemies is the danger that some additional, non trivial, fraction of the Islamic world will only hear the "Islamic" portion of the name and it will make the Clash of Civilizations more overt. I believe this is the main reason we do not hear our country's representatives use the term and why it would be dangerous to use the term. As much as some might welcome the clarifying nature of a more overt COC, and in fact the Jihadists have been trying to precipitate just such a clash, we might be better off avoiding the full blown conflagation, if at all possible.

Posted by: Perry Branson at January 30, 2005 6:11 PM

"eez, I wish I'd seen that.

Better yet, I wish my husband had seen it!"

It might still be up at the C-SPAN site, you can watch it on your computer. It's definitely worth it. Hitch is scathing.

Posted by: Yehudit at January 30, 2005 6:13 PM

Catherine: "You pick the words that win arguments if at all possible"

How can one win an argument if the vocabulary is imprecise? or if the definitions are not agreed upon?

Methinks there may be another argument that has to be won first.

Posted by: Syl at January 30, 2005 6:29 PM

"I guess I'm going native."

LOL. Me too. I have a serious crush on Iyad Allawi!

Posted by: PJ at January 30, 2005 6:38 PM

Catherine, Yehudit — There's a couple Hitchens pieces still up on C-Span.com. You have to click on the "all recent programs" link to reach them.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 30, 2005 6:41 PM

"the danger that some additional, non trivial, fraction of the Islamic world will only hear the "Islamic" portion of the name and it will make the Clash of Civilizations more overt."

Perry,

I would be surprised if there is a faction of the Islamic world that doesn't understand the religious nature of the war. The salafists have made it crystal clear that a Clash of Civilizations is exactly what they are engaged in. They do call us the Crusaders after all. Besides, I doubt our English terms are faithully translated into Arabic anyways.

The English terminology used is important in how the debate is framed in our society. Yes, the Axis powers were all called fascists in WWII, but the term fascist was not neutral like insurgents -- it was a prejorative.

There is no reason that we shield the enemy with our laguage. Whatever term is settled on should remove that eratz objectivity and be a name that is spit out with disgust.

Posted by: ambisinistral at January 30, 2005 6:44 PM

Although we make a distinction between the secular Baathists and the rest, it is my understanding that many of the Sunni's fighting for the Baathists have absorbed enough of the Wahhabi or Salafist or whatever ideas that they believe they are fighting a religious war.

The high level Baathists, who are probably sitting safely in Damascus (they think... it's close to Tomahawk time), are pure Fascists, but they are using religion (as Saddam did after 1990) to fire up support and create suicide troops.

Does anyone know if Saddam allowed the Wahhabi's in a while back? I think he did, perhaps to take advantage of their ability to create suicidal psychopaths.

Islamofascist probably is the best term.

As far as a war of civilizations... we are in it. There is fighting from the Phillipines to the middle east through the Sahel desert. Wahhabis are moving into South America.

But like any modern war, it ain't that simple. The bad guys are a slice of a large society - but a big enough piece to terrorize the rest into going along.

This election will put a big dent in their plans. Taking out Syria will also.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at January 30, 2005 9:00 PM

Why not just call them anti-democracy forces?
Isn't that neutrally descriptive, nonjudgmental enough for the MSM? It also emphasises their lack of a positive agenda.

IIRC, Salafis are Muslims who observe a strict form of Islam that they believe is the pure form of the religion that was observed by Muhammed and his companions. IIRC, al-Wahhab was an 18th Century Salafist who allied with the Saudi tribe and established their delightful religious-political-legal principles. Thus, Salafism is the worldwide movement and Wahhabism is the Saudi version.

IIRC, Ba'athism is a secular movement (actually started by a Lebanese Christian), which is basically pan-Arab fascism. After the first Gulf War, Saddam tried to acquire Islamist legitimacy and support by building huge mosques, having a Koran written with his own blood, and adding "Allahu Akhbar" to the flag in his own handwriting. Whatever their spiritual affiliation or sincerity, I think that Ba'athists and secular Palestinian groups (such as Fatah), as well as Salafists (such as Hamas and al-Qaeda) and Shi'a Islamists (such as the Iranian mullahs and their Hezbollah protegees) all believe in jihad - conquest by Muslims (whether to reinstate the Caliphate or to glorify a particular egomaniac) and defeat of the infidels (whether that means anyone non-Salafi, or just non-Muslim, or the US, and always the Jews). So, Jihadist is also an applicable term.

Posted by: UpNights at January 30, 2005 9:58 PM

Reactionaries? Not a bad choice, although I've been reserving that for the so-called "liberal" anti-war people, who aren't liberal in any sense of the word but rather are simply anti-humanist, anti-progressive reactionaries. I prefer the plain old label "terrorist" for the remaining Saddamite and extreme theocrat lunatics. But calling them all reactionary elements--the violent and the non-violent reactionaries, let's say--does have a certain charm doesn't it?

Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 31, 2005 1:40 AM

“Islamo-fascist is better”

No, it is not. The Fascism of Mussolini, Franco, and even Hitler did not require suicide for the cause. Risking one’s life was demanded---but not outright suicide. We are dealing first, last, and foremost with nihilism! Death and destruction are ends to themselves. This world is essentially meaningless. The followers of Allah are to hurry up and die so that they can enter an afterlife of never ending pleasures.

Posted by: David Thomson at January 31, 2005 2:23 AM

Since we keep getting told the islamofascists don't represent all of Islam, how about just "cultists"... or barbarians...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 31, 2005 7:14 AM

I don't care if we call them terrorists or murdering scum. I personally like Islamomurderer but that lets the secularists or otherly religioned among them off the hook. The message - whether to Salafist, Wahabi, Mindinao Mufti, Basque Catholic, or Garden Variety Marxist - needs to be the pointed end of the Iraqi Catherine quoted via the NYT, "We will kill you."

Posted by: Knucklehead at January 31, 2005 8:52 AM

All right, I am settling on “jihadis”. This tells us all we need to know: the fanatical devotion to the cause, the perpetual. holy war with the Other (otherwise known as Unbelievers), and the religious roots, even if some of them evolved away from the strictly theological background.

Posted by: Katherine at January 31, 2005 3:57 PM

How about "targets?"

Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 31, 2005 5:16 PM

Targets?

Oh, I like that!

Posted by: Katherine at January 31, 2005 5:29 PM

On PBS tonight, our favorite prof Juan Cole called those we are still fighting in Iraq "rejectionists". I suppose he didn't coin this term with their rejection of civilized behavior and even of life in mind. He may not even be referring to their rejection of democracy per se, only to the fact they are rejecting us, our intervention, and the attempts to set up a government they don't control.

My vote is not to stay with a one word term wrt Iraq because nothing seems to capture the dual nature of these really evil people, and the corrupt secular interests should have equal billing to the hideous religious ones. So, I'd go with a mouthful for everyone to have to fully digest, such as "jihadist and Baathist terrorists". Or maybe an even bigger mouthful, "Islamofascist and Baathist terrorists".

What to call their acolytes, minions, enablers and brainwashed lackeys? Well, some might term them the "the leftist press"...

Posted by: charlotte at January 31, 2005 7:40 PM

Email This Post