Understanding popular insurgency, again...

I’m ashamed at the shallowness and ignorance of human nature, displayed by many in US media. Take Chris Matthews on 11-23-04, for instance.

Cheap trick. Sounds controversial, while it absolutely isn’t. That’s exactly how you win hearts and minds of most people: by clearing their cities of “outside terrorists” like Zarqawi, or domestic despots, like Baath party types. There is a lot of hatred brewing inside any totalitarian country, the depth of which people in democratic countries can hardly fathom. From experience, I spent long time in old Soviet Union, and you could win my “heart and mind” any time you show me a head of a Communist party boss on a stick.

Another cheap trick. There is nothing controversial about killing some Arabs to please other Arabs. Arab world is rife with animosities, ancient and modern, and many of contending parties would be entirely happy to see their opponents dead. So it is quite possible to please some Arabs by killing other Arabs. And that doesn’t apply only to Arabs.

To expand, it is quite possible to please some Americans by killing other Americans. If any grief would suddenly come to the GOP, I think the first reaction of most Democrats would be moderately gleeful and hopeful. For example, if Martians took over US, get rid of all Republican leaders and proceeded to persecute entire Republican party, I don’t think Reeder would immediately join elucidator’s “Holy Motherland” brigades (just to pick two names at random). I think the general attitude of Bush detractors would be to wait and see, what happens next. There might be anomalies, for life is full of surprises, such as rjung starting “Bush the Martyr Avengers” fringe radical movement, but it would be rather the exception than the norm. Most people not purposefully targeted by invaders would try to take advantage of new opportunities, arising from fall of their old foes. And therein might lie real cause for the emergence of popular insurgency.

As much as I understand, people are always contentious, always fighting for something. There are animosities between states, between political parties within a state, between factions of the same party, between factions within factions, between personalities within groups within factions… without end. When a big adversary is removed, power vacuum forms and smaller struggles are blown out of old proportions very quickly. Democrats left without Republican opposition would most likely disintegrate into warring gay, union, green and other factions, each one originally looking for help from the mighty invading force. However, each will soon discover that invaders are not interested in their petty causes; all invaders want is to have “no trouble”, period. Few people would agree to that in their hearts. With every new frustration, the alien nature of invaders would become more and more apparent, people will be reminded of dear old things they have in common with their disagreeable countrymen and eventually the real national resistance might spring up. From jubilation to chaos to new national unity.

To understand this process better, I’d like to ask, what would it take for everyone to take arms and join the resistance against the beneficial invader that concentrates on destroying your erstwhile enemies and even tries to stay on your good side? Perhaps that way we can get past the meaningless media chatter and get some real understanding of the issue.

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps the discontent Iraqis just don’t want the Americans there? You seem to place Americans killing terrorists in Iraq in such a great light, but it seems to me that most of the good Iraqis would rather kill these troublemakers themselves, establish peace, and kick the Yankee invaders out the door ASAP.

I like how you think, Isk. Now if the US would only hurry up and kill, oh, say about 6 or 7 million Sunnies, I’m sure “many other Arabs” woud be pleased.

Say, didn’t somone else try that line of reasoning before? Worked out well, didn’t it?

BTW, are you friends with Juan Cole? I ask because it appears he is resproding directly to you in one of his latest entries:

Happy killing.

I’m disturbed by how much seems to be deliberate misdirection and misinformation. Particularly from various op-ed writers and other talking heads.

To start, your experiences at another point in time in another part of the world do offer some insight into this situation, it doesn’t appear to be as exact of an analog as you seem to have put it.

Compare and contrast you comments with the Pentagon’s Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication.

** “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists …
… the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.” **

So, it’s not entirely clear that Iraqi’s feel oppressed by the Jihadi insurgents the same way that the citizens of the USSR felt oppressed by Commie Party Bosses.

Rather, it seems to indicate that broadly, the public may see Jihadis as being on their side against oppressors. If this were the case then, (to follow your analogy), all that it would take to make an Iraqi happy would be the head of an oppressor on a stick. However, the oppressors, (in their eyes), are us, the US.

Given this, I’m not in agreement with you about Mr. Matthews quoted comments being a cheap trick ala El Rushbo.

It all depends on who is Us and who is Them. It’s acceptable for Us to kill Them and for Them to kill Them. However, it’s not acceptable for Them to kill Us.
When the US is a patr of Us, I’d say that you’re right.

It seems hard to make the case that the US is a part of Us when it comes to the Arab World in general.

This is just grotesque.
If Martians took over the USA and were slaughtering Americans, Americans would be up in arms. Examples of the “It’s okay 'cause it’s only Pubbies,” attitude would be hard to find.

Martians would definitely fall into the category of Them. It’s not acceptable for Them to kill Us.

It’s not clear that Iraqis perceive this to be the case in Iraq.

A counter point from the DoD report:

"Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.
Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination."

Perhaps if we “engage in a respectful dialogue of ideas that begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort,” with the people in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab World instead of navel gazing about what we would do if we were in a hypothetical situation we could “get some real understanding of the issue.”

Let’s do this…

I’m an Iraqi father. My house is next door to a so called insurgent gathering place. Now I have no idea who these people are nor do I care.

The Americans decide to take the place out.

My children are out in my yard.

From 5000 ft up a 500 lb bomb is dropped. It takes out the house that housed the insurgents.

Unfortunately it took out my children too.

Who am I going to hate?

That, of course, is absolutely true. I didn’t want to draw the parallel, only to provide an illustration of deep hatreds inside oppressive societies.

I agree. Once the tyrant (like Hussein) is toppled, it’s completely new ballgame. That’s exactly what I was trying to get at.

I’m sorry, but that’s exactly what I’m talking about: Muslims are not especially greatful to US for removing few bad Muslims. Just recently I heard, “Sure, good to have Hussein gone, but US is wrong with this, this, this…” I was trying to describe the quick fading away of the memories about old villains and mounting list of grievances against US in the Muslim world. That’s why I was talking about alienation toward US and possible emergence of the new national unity in Iraq.

I was not advocating killing. However, to pretend that the world always benefits from less killing is extremely naive. To make use of your own attempt to bunch me together with Hitler, it took killing 10,000,000 German people to rid the world of the Nazis.

What the hell world are you living in?

Hitler?

I was referring to collateral damage which occurs every day in Iraq.

You still didn’t answer my question.

Who am I going to hate? The guys in the house?

Or the guys that dropped the bomb that killed my children?

I didn’t think you’d have an answer.

To you everyone that stands up against our occupation is a terrorist.

Not so.

Sure you were:

Revisionist history within three posts in the same thread. Must a be a new backpedaling record of sorts.

Congrats.

BTW, speaking of naive, this whole idea that you’d be killing ‘selected Arabs’ while sparing ‘innocent Arabs,’ thus making ‘contending parties enterily happy’ is worthy of a Hollywood script.

Have anyone in mind for the lead?

Well said RedFury.

And here I thought our purpose was to to dispell ingnorance.

Don’t you love it when people post shite…get called on it.

Then they run?

I sure as hell do.

You know what’s better than ‘being right’? Having people who will take the time and effort to carry on an earnest honest dialogue with you.

No matter how cool or how ‘right’ one is, it’s worthless in a debate forum if no one else’s willing to earnestly debate w/ you.

Just cuz a fella doesn’t decide to post at your convenience (or at all for that matter) don’t mean much.

It would appear that the upcoming elections will provide some gauge regarding whether Iraqis consider the foreign terrorists, or the occupying troops, to be Them or Us in Simon’s parlance.

I suspect the answer is a resounding “THEM!” for both such factions. I believe a free election will return a nationalist platform committed to ridding Iraq of all foreign influence as quickly as possible (note to the Halliban: including re-nationalisation of the oil infrastructure) and the institution of some elements of Islamic law. An election which forbids any such candidate would be about as ‘free’ as the elections in Iran.

There is a distinct danger that given the daily destruction and deaths, and complete disruption of everyday life, some might consider Saddam’s brutal but stable reign to be the “good old days”. He mightn’t have made the trains run on time, but at least a cab to the airport didn’t cost $5000.

Incidentally, none of the main parties in the election seem particluarly likely to call the troops “Us”:

OK I guessed other bashed him already… so I’ll “debate”.

If the insurgents were universally “despotic” towards civilian Iraqis… your twisted logic might work. The fact is that the population in most places seems to support or agree with insurgents. Probably in some places they are fed up… or insurgents aren’t too welcome… but then neither are US “liberators”.

Comparing decades of commie bosses and the hatred they caused… to some months of iraqi insurgency isn’t a good comparison by any stretch. Especially when the fact that the very existence of the insurgency is blamed on the American invasion.

Now strange how Iraqis seem to enjoy seeing “US troops on a stick”. Notice how they dance around blown up humvees and APCs ? Can you even start to contemplate that Americans are playing the part of oppresors in the minds of these people ?

This just reminded me of that oldish movie “The Beast of War”… where a Russian tank commander in Afghanistan keeps blabbing about being a “tank boy” during the fight against the Nazis… but the fact that he is the “invader” in Afghanistan escapes him totally…

Hey Reeder, chill, dude, he was replying to Red Fury. Wait to see if he’s got anything to say to you.

Yes as people dancing around Najaf and Fallujah next to a burning Humvee is accurate reflection of the peoples sentiments in the whole of Iraq. :rolleyes:

Red Fury invoked Hitler, not you. To answer your question, obviously your taking up arms under the circumstances would be entirely understandable. That what I was asking originally, what would it take for everyone to take arms? However, I think that victims of collateral damage don’t make popular insurgency in Iraq.

Still, that brings up a point of how stupid it is to for the media types to bunch all casualties in Iraq together simply as “killed Arabs”. There are many people in Iraq that deserve to be killed. Baath party members are not any different then Nazis in any respect. If we agree that all Nazis deserved to be killed, then all Baathists deserve to be killed. Therefore, few hundred thousand dead Baathists in Iraq is completely acceptable. The question is, how many people killed are indeed Baathists? What if all of those killed are indeed innocents? Makes a huge difference, doesn’t it? Then why don’t we see any effort on behalf of the media to differentiate, to try to give a separate count between dead Baathist and innocent Iraqis killed?

Not if they’re dead.
I’ve heard tell that revenge is quite fashionable over there though.

Quite possibly, depending on who decides what ‘deserves’ means.

This is obviously an over-statement.

I don’t agree that all members of the Nazis deserved to be killed. Not all Nazis were guilty of atrocities. Many were just everyday humble chumps trying to stay employed. Apparently, this is also true of Baathis

“A few hundred thousand”!
Sweet fucking Og! Are you mongongo monkey nuts?
That’s fucking genocide.
Think, man, think.

Committing genocide in Iraq is not acceptable. There’s reason to suspect that it would encourage moderate Iraqis to interfere with US efforts.

Maybe because when the hospitals and morgues ask the dead what political party they belonged to before the invasion they don’t receive much response.