That’s all, really. I see the American invasion as the unjustifiable aggressive act of a global bully, and would dearly like the American/coalition forces to leave. Right now, that only looks like happening if the insurgency is victorious a la the Viet Cong, so I root for them.
Honestly, if you want us to leave, peace and prosperity in Iraq will get our asses out of there next week. But, if there is unrest, we don’t have much choice but to stay until the Iraq government gets things under control. It’s like the drunken idiot on the side of the road who thinks that the police will leave him alone if he just keeps resisting them.
Not to mention that they do a much better job killing Iraqis and destroying Iraq infrastructure than they do killing soldiers and damaging army equipment.
It’s their country. They’re resisting an outside force.
I don’t support their targeting civilians. I don’t believe that their attempts to destroy the infrastructure are doing more good than harm. But it is their turf. So they’re patriots, if misguided ones.
Not me. Besides their inexcusably murderous methods of targeting civilians, the insurgents’ chief goal appears to be basically to destroy whatever stability and self-determination the millions of responsible, peace-loving Iraqis (of all sects) have managed to cobble together, in order to provoke a full-scale sectarian civil war out of which they hope to extract a repressive Wahhabist theocracy controlling all or part of what’s left of Iraq when the civil war ends.
Can’t get behind that, sorry. I yield to nobody in my detestation of this dishonestly planned and incompetently executed war of aggression, but it’s worth remembering that stupid American neocon imperialists are not the only bad guys in the world, and not always even the worst of them.
Apparently, “patriot” has changed meaning along with “freedom”. Targeting civilians is sufficient in and of itself to disqualify them from patriot status, as far as I’m concerned. Resisters in early America and Vichy France were patriots.
Of course not. But then, those targeted are mostly those cooperating with the coalition forces. Hardly makes them objective either, does it?
Look, let me say outright I don’t condone all their methods, some of the things they do are just plain fucked up.
Doesn’t make their struggle any less legitimate, any more than a lot of necklacings of informers and collaborators here made the struggle against apartheid any less right.
To be fair, Lib, it appears that some of the pro-independence fighters in the American colonies also targeted civilians among the “Tories” or British loyalists. There probably isn’t a case in history where “patriotic” rebels didn’t commit some terrorist acts against those whom they considered “collaborators” with an oppressive regime.
Well, but you didn’t ask if we thought the insurgents had a legitimate cause of struggle against the occupation. You asked whether we were rooting for them to win. And given the barbarity of their tactics plus the catastrophic destructiveness of their aims, the answer is overwhelmingly “no”.
Well the US would probably leave quicker if all the insurgency stopped and the politicians could just push through their pro-religion/anti-female constitution*
While I can understand why the insurgents fight I can’t support their attacks on civilians and innocents. I didn’t support US ‘Shock and Awe’ tactics either.
Iraq is a bigger mess now than it was under SH IMO. Civil War will be very hard to dodge in the long term. The fuel resources will be part of power plays well into this century and the US will have a presence there for a long time to come. Bush and his admin were allowed to do this by both the US politicians and the majority of the population. I feel no guilt whatsoever in wanting the US to be burdened with the nightmare that is in no small part their own making. Maybe next time their will be more real debate and thinking and less nationalistic gung-ho jingoistic shite.