My question is: why can’t the Iraqi “insurgents” be defined as guerrillas? I thought that a “guerrilla” was defined as
With the exception of the “foreigners who have entered Iraq,” why doesn’t this definition apply to the Iraqi resistance? They’re small bands of irregular military/paramilitary units. They’re harassing the enemy (us) with surprise raids. There’s nothing in that definition about an “organized resistance”–in fact, aren’t guerrilla units normally quite diverse in their goals and ideologies?
But Rumsfeld says he wouldn’t use the term “guerrilla,” preferring to use the term “terrorist.” There are obvious psychological reasons for this, as the term “terrorist” now carries connotations of “Al-Qaida” (Bush exploited this logic in justifying the war, using an argument along the lines of: Saddam gave financial support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists. Al-Qaida are terrorists. Ergo, Saddam supports Al-Qaida).
But let’s analyze this more closely. Are the terms “guerrilla” and “terrorist” mutually exclusive? Don’t guerrillas sometimes–often–use terrorist methods in their acts of violence? Is there any real difference in the degree of a unified ideology or organization in a guerrilla group as compared to a terrorist group? It seems to me that the boundaries between these two categories are rather fluid.
So, what is Rumsfeld on about? Why is he so adamant that the resistance groups in Iraq are not guerrillas?
And how the fuck does he think that this situation in Iraq compares to post-colonial America? I mean… come on!
Well, given that the answer to your second question is “yes,” the answer to your first question is obviously “no.” If guerrillas use terrorist tactics, they obviously can be terrorists as well as guerrillas.
In terms of ideology, i’ve never really thought that either term need apply to a specific or even very coherent set of ideological beliefs. When terrorist or guerrilla groups do have a unified ideology or belief system, this is often made clear by adding adjectives, e.g. Marxist guerrillas, Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group.
As you note in your OP, Rumsfeld has good tactical and rhetorical (you use the term “psychological”) reasons to call these groups terrorists. “Terrorist” is a word that instantly gets people on board to oppose such groups, whereas the term “guerrilla” can conjure up, for some people at least, visions of noble freedom fighters battling a larger enemy in defence of a just cause. I just think Rumsfeld wants, as usual, to control the terms of the debate in order to gain support.
I haven’t read in close detail about every recent action in Iraq, but it seems to me that most, if not all of them were carried out against US troops. Now, Saddam Hussein might no longer be in power, but some in Iraq still see the troops as an invading force. Just because they are starting to help rebuild things and set up an administration doesn’t really change this. I personally find it a bit difficult to label as “terrorist” people who attack the armed forces of an invading country. If the attacks were generally being made on Iraqi civilians, i’d be more inclined to label them “terrorists.”
Note, i do not support the attacks. Now that the US has gone in and is obviously not going to be driven out by a few attacks like this, i think it would be best for everyone if the violence stopped and the Iraqis did their best to get their country in order. Despite all this, however, i’m not sure that “terrorist” is the term i would use. I think that “guerrilla” is probably a reasonable description, as it describes their tactics quite accurately.
Ever seen Planet of the Apes ?
That was guerrilla warfare, but not even in its purest sense, as apes and other species were involved as well.
Tagging the term “guerrilla warfare” onto a conflict between strictly human adversaries smacks of disingenuous left-wing revisionist Bush-Bashing.
Apparently our response, Dessert Sidewinder, involves the coordinated use of infantry backed by aircraft and armor. We’re using planes and tanks in a coordinated fashion against an enemy whose tactics are described as organized so this definitely is the type of thing that can be described as a war.
The guerilla part has been previoulsy established.
It’s easy. If the U.S. Government supports you, then you’re a guerrila (remember the Contras, Afghanistan in the 80s?). If you’re fighting against it, you’re a terrorist.
No, no, no. If the US could care less about you then you’re a guerilla. If you oppose the US then you are a terrorist. But if the US Government supports you then you’re a Freedom Fighter.
You may be joking, but I think this needs to be followed up on, since there are a lot of people who think “guerrilla warfare” has some kind of simian context.
“Guerrilla” comes from the Spanish guerra “war” and the diminuitive suffix illa, so “little war”. Guerrillas fight a little war, they don’t have large troop movements and bombers flying overheard.
You’ll have to do better than that, Read_Neck. The fact that a New York Post editorialist also calls them “terrorists” does not exactly make for a convincing argument. Before i could read the rest of the piece, i had to stop laughing at the first paragraph:
Furthermore, this article also concedes that some US troops and convoys have been attacked, and last time i looked attacking an invading or occupying army did not fall under the definition of terrorism.
The author of that piece of “journalism” also says that
Well, as i said above, if they are killing civilians, then i might be inclined to use the word terrorist. But, then again, if the people carrying out these attacks still see the US as an invading and occupying force (which it undoubtedly was and is), then they might also view cooperative Iraqis as collaborationists.
And i haven’t seen any recent reports of “key Iraqi citizens” being assassinated; if anyone has a link, i’d be interested to see it.
