What Does Insurgent Mean?
Posted: Monday, November 22, 2010
by Kenny St.pierre
Because I hear the word used often, I became curious to find out what exactly an insurgent was. I don't hear my friends or family use the word much, if at all, but the media and U.S. Government officials seem to use this word as though it were some terrible evil spirit with a contract against pure law-abiding folk as us.
I used Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary as my source:
Insurrection (In-se-rek-shan) n . An open revolt against established authority.
Considering the situation we have in Iraq, these definition's leave me confused as to who is using the terms as they are defined.
For instance, I wonder what they mean when they say established authority? The U.S. invaded Iraq, who at the time had an established authority, albeit not a very popular one - therefore I question, does this make the U.S. insurgents? Didn't the U.S. revolt against Iraq's (Saddam Hussein) established authority? Also, when did the U.S. and coalition forces become the established authority? Who, besides the coalition themselves, declared them the established authority? How can one group invade another under false pretenses, declare themselves "established authority," and say that those who rebel against them are " insurgents,"when it's the invaders who are the ones revolting against what was an established authority? I was perplexed at the use of these definitions, and am now puzzled by the lack of care the average American has for the understanding of such terms.
" On 14 November 2003 General John Abizaid, the head of US Central Command, estimated the number of fighters operating against US and allied forces at no more than 5,000, and said the insurgency remained a loosely organized operation. Abizaid said there "is some level of cooperation that's taking place at very high levels, although I'm not sure I'd say there's a national-level resistance leadership." He also said " the most dangerous enemy" to us at the present time are the former regime loyalists" operating in central Iraq."
From: globalsecurity/military/ops/iraq_insurgency
I'm trying hard to understand General Abizaid's words, "the most dangerous enemy," when I consider the grounds for why we went to Iraq in the first place - The U.S. invaded Iraq under false pretenses (Weapons of mass destruction)- so I ask, what enemy is the General referring to? We did not invade because Iraq was our enemy - we invaded because, according to the U.S. government, Saddam Hussein was a bad man with many threatening and killer instruments at his disposal. It's been quite some time since it came to light there were no WMD's, and Saddam's hanging, so how and when did the Iraq people become our enemy?
I ask anyone reading this, if Iraq had invaded the U.S.(especially under false pretenses), and you witnessed foreign tanks and military people patrolling our streets daily, would you not take up arms and join forces with your neighbors to protect yourself against an intruder? If so, would you like to hear that you are considered an "insurgent" and a "most dangerous enemy?" Don't those terms seem a bit unfair when you consider that you'd feel justified in fighting back for your people and country, and believe it worth risking your life to protect yourself, family, and neighbors against an aggressor?
According to Abizaid, "The goal of the enemy ... is not to defeat us militarily, because they don't have the wherewithal to defeat us militarily. The goal of the enemy is to break the will of the United States of America. It's clear, it's simple, it's straightforward. Break our will, make us leave before Iraq is ready to come out and be a member of the responsible community of nations."
A responsible community of nations? Hmmm. Does the good General mean like the "responsible" information U.S. intelligence supposedly had when they declared war on Iraq? Is that the kind of responsibility he's referring to? Over 66,000 'civilians' and 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents) have died because of the "responsible community of nations." The U.S. and coalition forces are so admiringly responsible, that not one person has been brought to trial for the misinformation that began the war. Damn, if only the Iraqi insurgents could be so trustworthy and accountable as U.S. and coalition forces have been - then we could all live in a cohesive world of beautiful tricksters and liars.
It's apparent, western pride and Imperialist ideologies continue to pillage the world, while it's cunning leaders use terminologies to deliberately deceive the ignorant general public for it's support.
This Article has been viewed 1,523 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)Very well written, Kenny! The double-standard rhetoric that is spewed out in defense of this whole war repulses me. I think the US has a lot of responsibility for the increase of terrorism in the world.What about all those innocent people who died? Nobody ever says a word about them, do they? Thanks for writing this article."I think the US has a lot of responsibility for the increase of terrorism in the world. "
*** I couldn't agree with you more Jennifer! If we weren't involved in the Middle-east there would be no reason for them to hate or attack us. We do more to incite terror attacks on our people than the Muslims do?
Thanks for reading and commenting.
I believe one thing Mr. Bush as the former president has mastered with excellence: How to scare the American people and may be others as well, to be afraid of insurgents and terrorism.Look where this has lead the people of America...Every time I hear the name "Bush" it makes me want to choke someone. Good points Walter, and thanks for commenting.
Kenny, you make a litany of very valid points here. How can someone be an insurgent when all they are trying to is free their country from the control of interlopers? In the eyes of most people, those "insurgents" would be called "patriots." Thanks for making us all think.You are so right George. It also doesn't hurt what skin color we have, or what God we believe in, so that it allows us justification for our actions. Insurgent (If American) = Patriot. Insurgent (If Iraqi)= Terrorist. Hmmm. I always find it amazing how powerful words are when they're twisted to ones favor.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
Yes Kenny, our government has a lot to do with the unrest in the world. They speak of peace but resort to violence.No doubt about it David....Thanks!
The Nixon administration called John Lennon and all of us who believed in his message of peace- IN-SUR-GENTS!Knowing John, it's probably why he wrote the song, "Just Give Me Some Truth."
"I'm sick to death of hearing things by nuerotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians...All I want is the truth...Just give me some truth..."*** Love that song. I think I'll click on over to YouTube and take a listen.
Thanks Ella!
For the first time in our history America executed an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, effectively making us what the terrorists and much of the world had proclaimed that we were for a long time, an imperialist nation. Critical evaluation is simply not a strong point of humanity, and so the world will turn, in effective ignorance and uncontrolled greed. You're just too far ahead of reality Kenny. Another great article.
you gonna be rounded up for questioning....Geez, I hope so. ..That will then confirm my sanity.
Kenny, this makes me think of Star Trek's Prime Directive, which says you do not interfere in the affairs of a culture by imposing your viewpoint on it. Of course, every incarnation of Star Trek violated the Prime Directive when it became apparent the society involved was going to negatively impact Starfleet. Sounds like they learned their lessons from the past. Good article.Now that you mention it, I realize Star Trek was a great metaphor for all the major literary themes... Thank you Danny!
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.