Kamikaze pilots vs. Iraqi Insurgents

What Sleel and TokyoPlayer said.

What the Kamikaze did was perfectly legitimate: suicide missions against military targets. There is no question that this in no way violates the rules of war.

I could not find a cite online, but I read somewhere that a US Navy captain ordered that a kamikaze pilot be given IIRC a military funeral and burial at sea.

Personally, I am disgusted by the Japanese military of that era, and I think that recruiting young men in the way they did was unethical toward those men, their families, etc. But the kamikaze themselves bear no resemblance to the suicide bombers of today.

Who said anything about hatred towards the victims? It’s about creating the belief that the current occupiers/government can’t control the countryside. In many respects their victims, American or Iraqi, don’t matter - it’s just noise to punctuate how upset they are. Even the people that have been beheaded were not chosen for their specific qualities, just because they were convenient labels attached to bodies they could execute.

What I’d meant was that there was no military strategy involved with the attacks. There is, of course, a political strategy. But it’s based solely on convincing two groups of people (The US population and the Iraqi population.) that no government will be stable unless it is one that the insurgents back. As for my claim about no over arching strategy - is there any kind of platform for what the insurgents want besides for the US to leave? That is not a goal that incorporates an actual long-term stable, and concrete goal. There is no proposed government to take over after the US leaves. There is no proposed means of even setting up a method to produce a post-occupation government that will meet the demands of the insurgents. Without that, no - it’s not even a complete and effective political strategy.

Finally, the current insurgency is a political, not a military, attack. The vast majority of attacks do nothing to affect the ability of the US or even the Iraqi National Police to project force and control the territory. They don’t attack communications, they don’t attack shipping or logistics, and the don’t attack bases. They attack marketplaces and they attack units on patrol.

How, exactly, do you know this? The U.S. media is not exactly rushing to get the insurgents’ side of things; hell, they only fairly recently stopped repeating the mantra that this was a “Ba’athist” insurrection, as if “Ba’athist” was a real ideology. For all you or I know, the ringleaders of these attacks may, in fact, have a post-occupation government in mind.

But that said, how would a lack of a concrete post-war architecture mean there was no overall strategy? The French Resistance was not particularly concerned about how to set up the French government after WWII; their concern was simply beating the Nazis. The Americans who fought the Revolutionary War had no clear plan at all for how to run the government after beating the British, and didn’t come up with the Constitution until six years afterwards.

Definitively a lot of grey here, yes. What about entrepeneur who builds office buildings for the occupiers? Is it worse if he builds prisons or military barracks? What about a newspaper which prints the truth according to the occupying powers, and thus becomes a propaganda tool?
As for the police, there’s a huge problem with dealing only with common criminals if an occupying power is defining what a crime is. For instance, owning a radio is a crime. Or publishing an unauthorised newspaper is a crime. For that matter, an occupying power would define guerilla actions against the occupation as crimes.

That’s one of the aspects which makes the current situation in Iraq seem so hopeless to me: If you’re a patriotic Iraqi who wants to see an end to the violence, do you really want to join the police, or help the police? That would mean you’re assisting the occupying power, and if you’re a patriot, are you sure you can live with that? Not to mention what everybody else will think about you, and do towards you and your family, even after the occupation is (hopefully) over.

What I said, was that there’s no publically announced governmental body and no way for the Iraqi people to know how to make an acceptable post-occupation government. Even if the leaders of the insurgency have their ideas of a post-occupation government, they haven’t publicized them. Which means that they have no propaganda movement going on to supplement their guerilla (in the best possible way of looking at things) actions.

Think about it: all other terrorist/guerilla groups I can think of have specific political goals. Hamas, The IRA and Sinn Finn, The Tamil Tigers, the Basque ETA, and others all have some propaganda effort to explain and recruit people for their vision of a proper future. Without some kind of overt political ‘game plan’ the best that the insurgents can work towards is another Afghanistan. And no matter how oppressive the Taliban had been - it was not an effective government. Before the US and coalition forces went in, Kabul had been seeing constant fighting for over a decade as various tribal groups tried to enforce their view of proper government on the country.

The difference between that and the French Resistance is huge: the various French Resistance groups were a hodge-podge of political theories, often with no agreement amongst themselve other than to send the Germans home, but they had definite and relatively public ideas for post occupation government. There were people who were claiming to be the logical defenders of the Republic, there were communists, and socialists, too. All of whom were waging a propaganda effort to gain popular support for their own views of post-occupation governments. I don’t have specific cites, now, and don’t feel like doing the searches I’d need to do to find them, I will, later, if you insist.

As for the American Revolution, while you’re correct that the current Federal government wasn’t ratified until 1789, that doesn’t mean that there was no post-Revolution plan. First off, at no point during the Revolution were the seperate states governments abrogated. Secondly, the Continental Congresses had already established a procedure for hammering out joint agreements between the various states. Finally, the Articles of Confederation - the first national organization of the United States - were in effect for 6 years prior to their being replaced by the Constitution, and had been publically agreed to by the Congress since 1777. All of which, negates your belief that there wasn’t a plan for post-Revolutionary War government. While the final government was, as you say, not agreed upon until six years after the Treaty of Paris, and eight after the end of actual combat - there was, at all times, a clear method for the establishment of a post-Revolution government. For example, the Declaration of Independance is one of the most brilliant pieces of propaganda ever written. And that’s from 1776.