|
May 15, 2006
The "Enemy" of my enemy is my "insurgent"!
As most readers know, war blogging is not my shtick. But I have a quick question: why are admitted al Qaida fighters constantly referred to as "insurgents"? This AP Wire from the Philadelphia Inquirer is typical (the same story is in USA Today): BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents shot down a U.S. helicopter south of Baghdad and killed two soldiers, bringing the weekend death toll of American service members to seven, the U.S. military said Monday.Why is "enemy action" in quotes? Is there no reportorial agreement on the definition of "enemy"? Or is it thought that "action" might be too strong a word for killing Marines? Puzzlingly, "al-Qaida insurgents" is then used: The U.S. command also said American soldiers and helicopters conducted four raids over the weekend in the Triangle of Death, killing 16 suspected al-Qaida insurgents, including one militant who allegedly had led the April 1 attack, during which two U.S. soldiers were killed when their AH-64 Apache helicopter was shot down in the Youssifiyah area.I wish they'd figure this out, because it's gotten to the point where I can't figure out what the AP is trying to tell me. Perhaps it's the AP's duty not to take sides, and that's why they can't use words like "enemy" and "terrorist" in their normal manner. But even assuming they're not on the side of the U.S. military, you'd think they could at least pass along their contention that the al Qaida fighters (regardless of whether they're to be called terrorists, insurgents, militants, or Sunni Islamist transnationalists) are losing the war. Fredrik Dahl from Reuters in Baghdad is fair enough to do that in a piece titled "U.S. Claim of al-Qaeda Iraq Weakness May Reflect Reality" at one site, and "U.S. Claim of al-Qaida Iraq Weakness May Reflect Reality" at another: BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A purported al Qaeda document published by the U.S. military may or may not be authentic but its message that the Sunni Islamist guerrillas face problems in Iraq could reflect reality, security experts said on Tuesday.Far be it from me with my limited knowledge to make a definitive pronouncement as to whether the report is correct. But if it is, that means that al-Qaida is losing the war. If Bush made an assertion like that in his speech tonight, "enemies" would probably raise hell. MORE: In other "enemy" news, Noam Chomsky paid a warm visit to Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon last week, where he claimed that Hezbollah should not be disarmed. The Chomsky visit wasn't much reported, although it received criticism in Lebanon, and at FrontPageMag.com. And Jeff Goldstein has an exclusive interview with Chomsky, in which Chomsky makes a distinction between "a wide-eyed 18-year old whose pink breasts are still perky with idealism," and "some grizzled old poli-sci hag with an Iron Butterfly tattoo on her sagging, wrinkled ass." Says Jeff at the end, You’re priceless, Noam. Don’t ever change. Whether Jeff Goldstein should be imprisoned for his crimes is part of the Atrios litmus test for liberals which is going around. I had thought the test was serious until I read that question. (I'm so liberal I don't even think Rush Limbaugh should be imprisoned, so I probably shouldn't seriously take the test. Hmmm.... Should I have said take the test seriously?) UPDATE: In the "title" to this "post," I "forgot" to place the word "insurgent" in quotes, so I have just "changed" it to reflect ongoing "realities." posted by Eric on 05.15.06 at 08:44 AM
Comments
The problem with the word insurgent is that it presupposes an internal uprising against an established state. A military operation conducted by al Qaida cannot accurately be called an insurgency. That's because al Qaida is by definition an internationalist (foreign) group and a terrorist one -- the same one responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers, and in no way connected to Iraq. I think they should at least be called the enemy. If they aren't then who is? Eric Scheie · May 15, 2006 02:16 PM That's the most honest and sensible thing Chomsky's ever said! Raging Bee · May 17, 2006 12:04 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eh, they don't exactly fit accepted definitions of "terrorist" if they're firing weapons at military aircraft conducting a war operation, but I don't think they're exactly "soldiers" either. "Warriors" is probably an accurate term to describe groups that might be made up of both jihadists and local Iraqs who just want Americans out, but they could never use the word "warriors." So insurgent it is then.