Roger L. Simon: Still "insurgents" after all these years

The news the other day that "insurgents" had killed two children in a bomb attack, fleeing their car as it exploded with the kids still in the back, reminded me how powerful words are in asymmetrical war. There it was again - the use of the romantic term "insurgents" for the psychopaths who performed this act, as if these freaks were the natural grandchildren of Pancho Villa or something, freedom fighters defending the down trodden.

Now to most of us they are fascists - either of the secular or the religious stripe - but it is perhaps too much to ask our sensitive media to use such a loaded word. So perhaps something like "anti-democratic forces" might be employed. Or is that also too much to ask? Maybe the NYT wants to be sure these child murderers are not "pro-democracy". After all, you never know. Right?

Comments

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

So perhaps something like "anti-democratic forces" might be employed.
Me, I call it depravity.

Seems to me that a person reading about an atrocity like this will react emotionally in one of two very different ways:

1)"These people are really scary. We'd better give them what they want so they don't do it to us."

2)"These people are really evil. We'd better destroy them as rapidly as possible."

Those of us who remember Columbus, New Mexico, actually think these people are the natural grandchildren of Pancho Villa.

I'm with CNN's Lou Dobbs on this one. Describing the chances Condi wasted to brand the enemy.

"The first moment of hope came when Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton questioned Rice about her assertion that we must "address the source of the problem." Hamilton noted: "There are a lot of very, very fine--2 billion Muslims. Most of them, we know, are very fine people. Some don't like us; they hate us." And then he invited Rice to elaborate. Regrettably, she demurred and chose not to address the fundamental question of who are our enemies."

"The second moment came as commissioner Bob Kerrey said straightforwardly, "I believe, first of all, that we underestimate that this war on terrorism is really a war against radical Islam. Terrorism is a tactic. It's not a war itself." Again, despite her statement that we must get to the source, Rice failed to respond to the former senator's clear assertion. One hopes that Kerrey's fellow commissioners and the nation took heed of his words. The enemy, as Kerrey said, is radical Islam."

"Our need to locate and destroy radical Islamists, before they destroy us, is just as urgent as ever."

Radical Islamists may not sound as damming as facist but that comes later with use.

This was an awful thing and I honestly do not know how people can justify it. Of course they just blame Bush. That is after all, the easy knee jerk thing to do.

The inhumanity of these islamists never ceases to shock me. Worse, it does not seem to effect the people in the press. Just where is their humanity?

I don't think they conciously justify it Terrye, I think deep down they know we're fighting pure evil and they're scared out of their wits. They're too frightened to support the fight, thus fall back on the Ostrich alternative.

The sad thing is, that overwhelming fright has tricked their minds into believing that cutting, running, and sticking their heads in the sand will make them safe. If we let them get their way it'll be too late for all of us when it all goes to hell here in the US.

If they will kill their own children (or perhaps children they kidnapped), imagine what they would do to you, me, our families and our civilization. Depravity is too kind, Fausta.

Lem, you are right that we are in a fight with radical Islam. However, we are misguided to think that this is a small cancer on the skin of Islam. It runs to the very heart of this "religion".

The fundamental tenets of Islam involve this world if not more than the next. It seeks to dominate society, convert at the point of the sword or be killed or make second class citizens of non-believers at best. There is no freedom. Women are third class members of society. (Women are beginning to realize that suicide bombing is one of the only ways to gain respect. Let's see....I'll kill myself versus being the victim of an honor killing..... How tragic! How barabric!)

ShoreMark, I don't agree. These folks have lost their sense of good and evil in their confused world of moral relativism. They have become so hardened that they cannot recognize the voice of their conscience when it calls.

You are right in your conclusion though. It will be too late for us if they get their way and tens of thousands more Americans will die needlessly.

We need to fight this every way we can - from the world of ideas, via the VOA, economically, militarily and so on. There needs to be a multi-lateral strategy.

We are in a fight to the death. Either the Islamic nihilists or ourselves will be left standing. There is not enough room on this small planet for both. George W. Bush has foolishly hesitated to consistently name the enemy. Once every 8-10 months isn't good enough. Sadly, the president is the least of our worries. He is still vastly superior compared to the left wing Republicans and Democrats who subconsciously wish to throw us to the wolves.

"I don't think they conciously justify it Terrye, I think deep down they know we're fighting pure evil and they're scared out of their wits."

"ShoreMark, I don't agree. These folks have lost their sense of good and evil in their confused world of moral relativism."

Well, there's a laboratory case in the comments at this thread, in which I asked anti-war readers to explain why leaving Iraq in the hands of such barbarians was a reasonable choice. One commenter endeavored to explain, starting with the claim that "We provoke more violence than we prevent."

You can read for yourself and decide if "scared" or "confused" fits better. From my own responses, it's easy to see that I'm favoring the "confused" explanation.

and David: What does Bush naming the enemy have to do with what these people did. He could name them all day long and it would not matter. If people can look at something like this and not know it is evil, then what does it matter what Bush calls them? Believe it or not I did not need careful instruction from George Bush to know that this was an especially cold blooded thing to do. It reminds me of stories I used to hear of the Viet Cong booby trapping babies.

I wish she were here to comment on this... Life is short and wonderful, enjoy or complain at your own risk.

Mercy...can't even get her name right...pp. Well, I do love you Kathy Seipp. Please forgive me for the awful mis-keyboarding. You will remain in my mind for many years...

I agree with you Terry as to whether we should be able to "know" evil when we read about it w/o the aid of the president.
The problem is, as I see it, w/o a good shorthand brand that encapsulates their hate and instantly recalls it to our attention we can only remain aware as long as their attacks continue.
Give you an example. If I were to call someone a Nazi, there would be no doubt as to the contempt I felt for that person. When we called someone a communist it was an attempt, I believe, to associate the individual with their ideology to such an extent the two - the person and their ideology - would be indistinguishable.
Without this branding it is much much harder to mobilize people. Just look at what's going on in the congress.

Don't forget opportunistic. If one were a partisan hack, with a weak grasp of history, and thought that Bush was a "compassioniate facist" while the terrorists were "bloodthirsty facists"--then one could talk oneself into believing that the best outcome would be for the West to win, but be horribly weakened in the process. For example, let the French and English win WWI, but then have the next generation renounce war. Or even better, let the gullible White Russians carry a lot of the revolution until it works.

This has the benefit, to the hack, of being mentally tangled enough that he can convince himself and others that he is even being patriotic. Let the enemies of progress battle it out, then he can step into the breach to lead us all to a better place. The collapse of Ancient Greece; the Fall of Rome; the encroachment by outside forces on the Italian city states or the baronies of Germany; the waves of invasion to the British Isles and their kinglets; the last minute typhoon that saved Japan from the Mongols; the death of a Khan that kept the same out of a fractured Europe--none of these examples seem to have crossed his mind. A brief study of any of them would find people that thought they could similary make opportunistic use of playing with fire.

Hrmmm, the dictionary defines insurgent as "a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel." They define fascist as, "a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism." And fascism as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

The people we are fighting in Iraq are not, in any way shape or form fascist. If the news media were to refer to them as fascist they would be using an incorrect term. Instead they refer to them as insurgents. Indeed, they are insurgents because they are engaged in armed resistance to the lawful government in Iraq.

Now, I agree that here, in the US its common to perceive "insurgent" as a heroic figure. But, this, I think has more to do with the way that Hollywood and Fiction writers have painted the archetypal "underdog". If we were to be honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that our war in Vietnam was a war with insurgents (Remember the folks who tied bombs to babies?). The Sandinista were insurgents. Mao led an insurgent army in China. None of these insurgents were noble underdogs. All of these insurgent groups employed horrific acts of violence against civilian men, women and children. All of them.

Almost every war fought since WWII has involved insurgents. Indeed, if we accept Col. Hammes conclusions in "The Sling and The Stone" insurgent warfare is the next natural evolution of warfare and the type of warfare that we will likely be engaged in for the foreseeable future. Not because insurgents are romantic, but rather because no national army on the planet can come close to meeting the US on the field of battle. There's no revolution that can pony up the money necessary to combat the US. Watch FutureWeapons for a month... we have shotguns that can launch frag grenades with no kick. We have rifles that can shoot .45's with no kick. We now have a sub-machine gun that can spray .45's with no kick.

Further we can mount them on top of a tank, run them from 100 yards away via wireless remotes and land every bullet on target. The only type of war that an enemy can engage us in at this point is an insurgency rich in terrorism.

This doesn't excuse the horrific acts of inhuman monsters like those mentioned in the link. It doesn't make it O.K. for insurgents to target innocent civilians. Those on the left that see the insurgents as heroes have a myopic view that sees only the evil of the US. For them, no matter what term is used... those murdering SOB's would be angels. However, their disconnect with reality doesn't mean we should use the wrong word to describe them. These Iraqis are insurgents, rebels, revolutionaries. These terms may sometimes relates to people struggling for freedom, they may also describe people bent on authoritarian control or sectarian genocide.

Calling the fascist seems silly... we might as well call them Commies, or Lobsters or any other term used for previous enemies. Those words don't describe them, not even close. We could call them Islamic Extremists, Islamo-nihilist maybe, even Islamo-Terrorists if we want to make up some scary term.

Let's not play politics with words. The idiots on the left do that quite often enough for my tastes.

Thumbnail sketch: They are in denial about the threat, because their world view is too narrow and parochial to admit such evil and/or they are emotionally incapable of coping with the knowledge of such evil's existence. Everything else is a consequence, rationalization, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Affect Storms or physical aggression towards anyone threatens the denial, etc.

A person can be an insurgent without being a terrorist. It doesn't happen much in practice, but it is theoretically possible. In order for it to happen, the insurgent would necessarily wear some form of uniform at all such times as the person engaged in insurgent activity.

Calling a "terrorist" something like "insurgent" is sometimes warranted when discussing particular activities. Terrorists often use insurgent means, because they get killed quickly otherwise. But if you want a convenient label for reporting to the American people the overall nature of the Iraqi opposition activities, "terrorist" would be far more accurate.

If one wants to insist that Drake be labeled a "pirate" versus a "privateer", then it will probably matter if one is English or Spanish. As with most people commissioned as privateers, you could make at least some case either way. On the other hand, if one wants to label Blackbeard a "privateer", then the relevant issues are if one is informed of the activities of Blackbeard, knows the distinction between "pirate" and "privateer", and most like what agenda is in play.

How about calling them "religious psychotics", taking the "Muslim" out of it. And, sure, if some Christian or Jewish nutbar makes car bombs and camouflages them with little kids, we can use it there, too.

Certainly, psychotics can be religiously motivated, do terrorists acts, and be part of an insurgency. I'm very curious, however, for an example of an "honest terrorist".

Kaboombayah my Lord...kaboombayah....
Then a car bomb going off...
Someones laughing my lord (scene of a child) Kaboombayah.

I'm not so sure. Insurgencies depend on the anonymous nature of their soldiers. I think if an insurgency were to succeed without being considered 'terrorists' they would need to restrict their attacks only to military targets. Unfortunately, one of the primary tools of the insurgent war is international public opinion. The Sandinistas proved that, the first Intifada proved it, Vietnam (both with the French and later the Americans) proved it and Iraq is proving it today.

An insurgent army, when faced with a vastly superior force has very limited options. They must hit fast and anonymously, they must hit in a way that turns the locals, the enemy's citizens and the international community against the continuation of the fight. Terrorism works very, very well for that. The only example I can think of where Insurgents didn't do terrible things was the First Intifada where the local Pali leaders (not the exiled jackasses led by Arafat) told their people not to use weapons, but only rocks... swaying public opinion by showing images of kids with rocks facing an Army with lots of guns.

Too bad they let Arafat back in the country. Israel and Palestine might actually be uneasy neighbors, rather than a hellhole of no escape.

I didn't make up the distinction between the terrorist and the insurgent. The Geneva Conventions did that. Since the MSM like to think that the UN holds some sort of moral high ground not enjoyed by American administrations (particularly Republican ones), I'm only commenting on the standard they set themselves.

If an insurgency runs into practical problems that tempts them to terrorism, that's not my problem, or America's either. There is no requirement that everyone in the world with a greivance have a way to exercise it in a fair fight. If you don't want to hide from Marines, don't tick them off.

Ghandi's way has always worked better when confronting a modern, Western democracy. The Marines come help you instead of shooting you. If someone would rather fight, we are forced to oblige them. That doesn't mean we should confuse them with a hypothetical Ghandi-wanna-be, forced grudgingly into violence.

Nathan Bedford Forrest could have conducted an insurgency against the north after the surrender of Lee and Johnston. A lot of people wanted to, and were willing to follow him. Not only did he not do so--he explicity commanded his men to do the exact opposite--because the time for fighting had ended, and he saw the terrorism that would be the inevitable outcome.

You know, there are some (ignorant) moderns that will call Forrest a terrorist and refuse to call certain Iraqi elements we are discussing such, even though such elements gleefully do things that Forrest forcefully denounced.

If insurgents can only continue fighting by engaging in terrorism then the insurgency has failed as an insurgency. It is time to quit or accept the harsher labels.

Insurgency, too me, has always implied a legitimate and morally correct purpose of action against a totalitarian other. I'm thinking of Ukraine, France and others during WWII. But then I am using outdated methods of discernment I suppose. Though I fail too see exactly in what manner I am mistaken. Am I focusing more on the ends or the act. Does that make a difference? If an action, in its ends, would allow more freedom, I might allow some legitimacy in its pursuit, if not, none.

Confused and hypocritical. Most likely. But not about the gutless terrorist's who seek to indiscriminately bomb us into fear and withdrawal, but about my even discussing the evil that they are. Our media wishes us to think of them as fellow human beings, with all the attendant compassion and sympathy. I call BS.

I can appreciate the proper use of language more than you may think. Insurgents employing deceptive tactics may be a good technical definition.

However, it misses the point. These Islamic fanatics, who celebrate death and are willing to blow up children, are EVIL. They must be destroyed. There are plenty of historic episodes of the suffering of people when societies are oppressed by evil people.

You can't take Islam out of this either. There are one BILLION Muslims in the world and only a handful denounce the goals and/or methods of these EVIL Islamic fanactics. This less of a fringe issue in Isalmic world than I fear. Roger wrote about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is in hiding after the murder of Theo van Gogh and her speaking out about Islam. Where are all the others?

The Left is so intent on defeating Bush that they can't see anything else. The Left is so tone deaf that they can't hear the moral outrage being shouted by their own consciences. (There are many reasons why the Left is morally insensitive, but that is for another time.)

While we must use language in a precise manner, we must make sure that the language we use communicates the EVIL that these people are.

I am afraid that Luther is right that the word insurgent in our society carries with it a legitimate and morally correct purpose. The MSM probably has fixated on this word precisely because it has those connotations and yet it can defended as technically accurate.

They define fascist as, "a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism." And fascism as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Sorry this is plain wrong. The Sunnis wish for the return of a strongman like Saddam who certainly qualifies as fascist. Al Qaeda wishes the imposition of sharia, which can only be enforced by forcibly suprressing opposition, having complete power, regimenting all industry and commerce and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, even racism. Although not specifically the western concept of a nation-state, there is such a force as Arab nationalism, and frankly fantatical religious types are hardly distinguishable from fascists. To parse definition so fine is to get into angels dancing on the head of a pin territory. Hitchens has had it right from day one--Islamofascists.

These 'insurgents' who blew up children in their car bomb aren't merely terrorists or radical Islamists, or fascists, or democracy haters, they are al Qaeda.

Nobody says that. You see al Qaeda comprises only 4% of the 'insurgency' in Iraq (according to a lefty troll recently). Al Qaeda participation in events in Iraq is ignored solely to downplay any rationalization of our continued presence in Iraq.

However, in reality, al Qaeda is responsible for the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq and is also the proximate cause of the sectarian violence. The Shia who had held back and shown some self-discipline at the urging of Sistani, threw care to the winds and threw down the glove after al Qaeda bombed the Golden Mosque in the spring of '06.

The vast majority of car bombings in Iraq are al Qaeda--it's their preferred method of destruction (and lately they've also been blowing up trucks filled with canisters of chlorine.) The 'regular' insurgents specialize in IEDs.

I think the NY Times has conveniently forgotten al Qaeda is still alive and well in Iraq.

While they scheme and execute murder and mayhem we are at pains to call them names.

"You can't take Islam out of this either. There are one BILLION Muslims in the world and only a handful denounce the goals and/or methods of these EVIL Islamic fanactics. This less of a fringe issue in Isalmic world than I fear."

I don't entirely disagree, but I'll note that there were not many Germans opposing the Nazis until after WW2 was over. If we kill the ones that like to kill everyone else, then you'll see a lot more moderates comes out of the wood work. Some of them will be like the vaunted French Resistance, which rapidly increased after Paris was liberated--but hey, if they disavow car bombs, that's progress.

"While they scheme and execute murder and mayhem we are at pains to call them names."

The MSM calls them "insurgents" in an effort to stop us from doing something about the murder and mayhem. Call them what they are, whatever the term, and it makes it easier on us to do something more constructive. The "elites" are at great pains to avoid "demonization of the enemy", but there is such a thing as "anglization of the enemy".

f an insurgency runs into practical problems that tempts them to terrorism, that's not my problem, or America's either.

I disagree. It is our problem, because we'll be the victims. It would be nice if people thought "Well, gee... I guess if terrorism is the only option, we'll just have to live with reality." But its not how people think. Insurgents tend to hold the position that they must win by any means necessary, and if Col. Hammes theory is correct (re: Fourth Gen Warfare), this is the style of war we'll see for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we're going to have to deal with it. We can call it whatever names we want and the left will fight and the right will fight and some people will try to find good epitaphs becuase its worked in previous wars (Gooks, Nips, Krauts etc). Calling them terrorists (even if defined by that Idiotic group of diplomats in NYC) won't matter... calling them Fascists won't matter either. We're dealing with a different kind of war, as different as the change seen during our revolution where we forsook the old rules of war and shot the Brits from the cover of trees. Or the change from WWI to WWII where trenches and protracted front engagements were made impotent by strategic blitzkriegs and the use of units that combined infantry, artillery, tanks etc instead of specific homogeneous units. Each of these shifts required a rethink of how to combat the enemy. This will be no different. Be it Muslim insurgents, or whatever group shows up next.

We can all agree that their actions are inhuman and horrific (well most of us with a brain can...) However, just as the British had to adjust their thinking to realize that the Rules had changed... so too will we. The rules are no longer what they once were, the enemy will likely no longer adhere to Geneva or any other agreement. Thus, its likely that we will have to reconsider and rethink our existing entangling alliances. We may no longer be able to usefully fight the enemy if we hold to the old rules, when we're involved in a new game.

Surely, some brits were having this same argument when facing our forefathers... "Well, they're hiding in the trees, this isn't war, its terror/anarchy... they need to come out here and fight like men." Yet, they didn't... the Americans changed the rules of engagement. So too are these Insurgent Terrorist Extremist Muslims (did that label make everyone more comfortable or should I add EVIL at the beginning)?

Further, its damn important, I think, that we understand this major change in warfare. We can call it unfair or evil or inhuman... but then, 250 years ago, they would have called our wars inhuman. 400 years ago, they would have thought we were all cowardly dogs ebcause we didn't engage our enemy in hand to hand combat (don't believe me? Read up on how the Chivalry, Knights and Men at Arms felt about Archers). Reality is a constantly changing thing, the way people think changes, the way people fight changes and the technology of war changes. We can call people names and worry about which names we use. We can rant about their tactics... or we can learn, understand and figure out how the hell to beat the goddamned bastards.

Our whole problem in Iraq, at this point seems to be that we tried to fight a 3rd Gen war... we thought this would be Army vs Army, even though there was plenty of evidence that indicated Mao, Ho, the Sandinistas and the rest had paved the way for something new. Hell, almost every war fought since the late 50's with the exception of the Gulf War, has either had an insurgent component or been a complete insurgency. If we had gone into this war, expecting the Iraq army to fall over and disappear and expecting an insurgency after that... we might have had a better plan. Instead, we assumed that the rules of war would be followed. This is a luxury we should have dumped in Vietnam and we should definitely remove from our brains ASAP.

One of the contributing reasons major world powers fall, often has to do with their inability to change when the form/technology etc of War changes.

Consider how technology wiped out Babylon, how the technology of Alexander the Great destroyed Persia, and how Rome fell to hordes of completely disorganized barbarians... because they were only fit to face armies (and they had already started to fall apart with their own nation... sound familiar?).

If we want to stay on top, we must assume that war has once again changed and change accordingly. For one, I think we should remove ourselves from the Geneva Conventions, I think we should reinstate assassinations and realize that we'll probably not see a war with winners and losers like in WWII again for a long time. You know, I hadn't realized until recently that Clinton had actually signed an authorization to assassinate Bin Laden. Of course, that was at the height of the Monica mess and he didn't have the political will or focus necessary to follow through. (One wonders if he would have had the will, even without that). Anyway, I may be full of shit, I may have a couple correct ideas and some incorrect ones... I dunno, I suppose only history will be able to tell us for sure.

The rules of engagement have changed and our strategies and tactics need to change as well.

Nevertheless, if we are going to have the perseverance to go the distance, we will need to wrap our minds around the fact that these are EVIL people. Blowing up babies and children is emprical, de facto evidence.

Whether we "demonize" the enemy or not, we better fight them or there will be blood on our streets that does not need to be spilled. More blood than anyone wants will be spilled no matter what. However, we need to recognize what we are fighting and I call it evil.

When I see "insurgent" I think suicide-bombing child-killers. That's because whenever there's a suicide bombing, dead children or no, it's always the work of "insurgents". I predict that eventually the press will figure this out and insist on a brave new word for terrorists. Thus the cycle continues.

The same thing happened to "liberal" -- it's a dirty word now -- and "progressive", a term now universally understood as a throwback to Marxism with an added dash of condescension.

It's George Lakoff's fantasy thought-control versus Wittgenstein's undammable river.

These days "insurgents" are terrorists just as "progressives" are Marxists, and there's not one of you reading this who doesn't know that. Think about it: do the words "martyr", "suicide", and "virgins" mean the same thing now they did September 10?

Okay, maybe it has to be "suicide bomber" and "72 virgins", but still ... ideas control the language, not the other way around.

Here's a formulation for you: "If we beat the insurgents, we'll win the war on terror." Ahh, but that would mean insurgents are ... that's right, and you parsed that sentence without a moment's hesitation.

March 21, 2007: Still "insurgents" after all these years

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post