Comments on: Words Mean Things: Insurgency

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

My objection to calling these terrorists "insurgents" is that it does imply that they are indigenous to the scene of the fighting. From what I understand this is largely not the case in Iraq anymore.

By: Perry The Cynic

Perry The Cynic — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Actually, my problem with the word "insurgent" is that it connotes, to me, something organically grown from within the polity of a place. In that sense, disgruntled former Baathists can indeed form an insurgency, but foreign jihadis cannot. By recent accounts, the jihadis are increasingly subsuming the Baathist reactionaries, so that one could say that the insurgency that has been going on for the last year or so is dying down, leaving the field to foreign-sponsored aggressors. (Foreign not in the sense of "foreign country," but of "not indigenous.") I consider Saudi, Syrian, or Tchechen jihadis to be aggressors (against Iraq as well as the U.S.), and certainly as neither a "rebellion" nor an "insurrection." Neither, apparently, do most native Iraqis, these days. Cheers -- perry

By: dc

dc — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

So some of you don't want to call those we are fighting in Iraq 'insurgents'. I suppose, for you, since Iraq is now 'soveriegn' we no longer 'occupy' it? Tell that to our soldiers and their families.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I dunno, dc. Do we still 'occupy' South Korea?

By: Attila Girl

Attila Girl — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Lukasiak always adds so much to the discussion.

---