Dean's World

No More "Insurgents"

Dean

I already said this, but it's worth saying again and Roger Simon is saying it well: it's time to stop calling them "insurgents".

All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:

No More "Insurgents"
Victory
Turnout In Iraq...
The Blogosphere's Fascist Apologists
Women's Rights
Meetings With Iraqi Bloggers, Breaking My Own Rules, And Related Thoughts

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks

(link)

Mark Noonan (mail) (www):

How about "walking corpses"?

1.31.2005 5:02am

(link)

Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):

I'm waging my own insurrection against the so-called "insurgents", and the mass media who employ such weasel words. I call those murderers what they are.

1.31.2005 5:03am

(link)

maor (mail):

I dunno.
If it's OK to call them "insurgents" when they're murdering civilians in an attempt to replace a sovereign government with a radical theocracy, why is it necessary to stop now?

1.31.2005 8:50am

(link)

Annoying Old Guy (mail) (www):

I call them "caliphascists", i.e. fascists who want to revive the Caliphate (this is true for both the religious and secular, it's simply a matter of whether the clerics will run the government or the government will run the clerics).

1.31.2005 9:44am

(link)

Mike C (AKA Walter Sobchak) (mail):

Are you guys aware that the American military also uses the term "insurgents" to refer in a general sense to the people fighting against us in Iraq? I see a lot of complaining on the right about this, but I'm not really sure why. It's a neutral descriptive term, like "activists" (which can apply to both anti-war activists and anti-abortion activists).

Also, do you know that a lot of leftists whine about the use of that term because they think "resistance fighters" would be more appropriate? As we know, they're not all "terrorists", and they're certainly not all legitimate "resistance fighters" either. So doesn't the neutral term make sense?

1.31.2005 10:43am

(link)

TLHeart:

What should they be called? They are fighting for the old status quo, fighting against change, against freedom, against the rule of law, against equality for women....

They are the enemy and they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal. A Neutral term is a passifists way of seeing the world. The armed forces have always used degragotory terms to label the enemy to dehumanize the image of the enemy.

They use terror, they will not face the coalition forces, for they know they do not have the fire power or the man power to win. They are terrorists.

1.31.2005 12:25pm

(link)

Robert B.:

Dean posted the Monty Hall problem a couple of weeks ago - so it put me in mind to be a little careful about interpreting the results of the election. I would be curious to know from Dean and other readers:

What information does the election turnout give us about the "insurgents" that was not known in advance?

Does the election turnout change what we *know* about the "insurgents", the value judgement we put upon them, or both?

On a related theme, are the results of the election likely to change the opinion of the many pundits out there? I.e. will those who opposed them see the high turnout as proof that they were wrong? Would those who supported have seen low turnout as proof that they were wrong?

1.31.2005 1:51pm

(link)

Dean Esmay (www):

Mike, you raise an interesting objection. I've usually heard people in the military call them "the enemy" but I have heard them use the term "insurgents." But do they really use that as their standard term, or did they pick it up from the press too? I'm honestly asking because I don't know.

1.31.2005 4:35pm

(link)

Dean Esmay (www):

Robert: It changes what we know about the enemy. Many have suggested that they are more representative of the average Iraqi than those who advocate free elections. Polls have generally failed to support that belief (they routinely showed that the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, want free elections, want a united Iraq, etc.) but the critics (Juan Cole and others like him) have routinely denied all this.

Well now we know: the enemy does not have the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. They really are murdering scumbags who seek to use terror to prevent the advance of human rights. I always believed this, but the election has vindicated that view.

As for the pundits: some have already made it clear that it does change their view. Some were in furious spin mode trying to downplay the whole thing. Watching who fell into which categories was instructive.

1.31.2005 4:46pm

(link)

Mike C (AKA Walter Sobchak) (mail):

do they really use that as their standard term, or did they pick it up from the press too?

I'm really not sure, although I sincerely doubt whether, if the top military brass believed that using the term "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" were somehow harmful to morale or the mission overall, they would continue to use it, regardless of what the press said. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the appropriate term, but it does essentially eliminate the possibility that anyone who uses it is against the success of the war.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's even possible that the press actually picked up the use of that term from the military, through embeds. I mean, doesn't it strike you as exactly the kind of bland yet technically descriptive euphemism the military would use... like, say, "deliver ordnance to the target" meaning "bomb the living fuck out of something", or "fighting capabilities degraded significantly" meaning "got their asses kicked"?

1.31.2005 5:16pm

(link)

Robert B.:

Thanks for your comment Dean.

Perhaps what was learned was something not about the level of support for the election versus the insurgent, but the uncertainty of the belief about that level. In particular it sounds like you are not surprised by the level, but you are more confident in the results because they confirm the polls. (in contrast to the exit polls in the U.S. election, so it *is* news) Those you cite as frantically spinning are in part forced to do so because the election confirms a tentative hypothesis from the polls.

I find it fascinating that Condoleeza Rice was quoted in both the NYT and WSJ as saying that the election surpassed expectations. From that one would conclude that she had a *lower* expectation of the turnout than actually happened.

We live in interesting times.

1.31.2005 5:17pm

(link)

Jeremy Nimmo (mail):

Well, if you are intentionally killing civilians or being negligient in your operations against military targets, and do not wear a uniform, then you are a terrorist. Insurgents or freedom fighters or revolutionaries or whatever are those attacking high-up civilians or military, fighting for a good cause (that means I approve of it, because I'm always right *cough cough* not communism) with a reasonable expectation of total victory or at least alleviation in suffering. That is the Haganah, the ANC or the PAC (who got pretty damn violent against each other, even) not the Viet Cong or the Iraqi terrorists.

1.31.2005 5:30pm

(link)

Donald S. Crankshaw (mail) (www):

Yeah, I've been saying that for a while as well. They are terrorists, plain and simple.

1.31.2005 11:07pm

(link)

Andrew Ian Dodge (mail) (www):

Yes, the only people who call them insurgents are the ones that either actively or passively support their cause.

2.1.2005 7:08am

(link)

Mike C (AKA Walter Sobchak) (mail):

Yes, the only people who call them insurgents are the ones that either actively or passively support their cause.

Oh really?

On the public relations side, Bush is looking to keep expectations among Americans in line with the difficult task ahead, cautioning Sunday that "terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against democracy."

2.1.2005 2:18pm