# Understanding popular insurgency, again... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376 "2004-11-30T20:14:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/21 "2004-12-01T17:50:35Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > 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”. What twisted logic? What do I have to do to keep you from flying off the handle and remain able _reason_? I gave you the possibility that there might be a popular insurgency in Iraq, growing more and more anti-American as time goes. I’m only trying to get at the possible roots of this. I am not satisfied with facile explanations that really explain nothing, that’s all. Saying that we alienate anonimous Arabs by killing anonimous Arabs means nothing and explains nothing. If we do indeed alienate Arabs it is by failing to understand them. As much as I understand human nature, people fight most readily when they percieve to be denigrated, when you do something demeaning to them. Killing someone’s enemies is not demeaning. Ignoring someone’s wishes and aspirations is demeaning. If there is indeed popular insurgency in Iraq, the roots of it might be found there. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/22 "2004-12-01T18:02:52Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > As much as I understand human nature, people fight most readily when they perceive to be denigrated, when you do something demeaning to them. Sometime when people feel threatened they will also respond with violence. > [@New Iskander](#): > > Killing someone’s enemies is not demeaning. The killing of one’s countrymen might be seen as threatening by some Iraqis. Especially given that we have had a less than stellar record of sorting “the good Iraqis” from “the bad Iraqis,” an Iraqi might worry that our powers of discrimination may fail when it comes to him and his, even if they are all “the good Iraqis.” > [@New Iskander](#): > > Ignoring someone’s wishes and aspirations is demeaning. If there is indeed popular insurgency in Iraq, the roots of it might be found there. Perhaps some Iraqis’ aspirations involve the withdrawal of US troops. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/23 "2004-12-01T18:07:52Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > 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. This is not a good analogy. The Nazis were attacking and killing people inside and outside their own country when the war began. Who was Iraq attacking? they didn’t even have the weapons [that Bushco said they had] to fight back with. WW2 was at least based on fact, while the current war with Iraq was based upon lies and more lies. Who benefits from people being killed for a lie? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/24 "2004-12-01T18:11:10Z")
Comic relief time? Ann Arbor professor cracking open his Little Red Book to find support for his notion of Fallujah in the wisdom of Chairman Mao. > [@Juan Cole](#): > > In fact, as Mao noted, guerrillas swim in a sea of supportive civilians. Priceless. And sharks swim in a sea of “supportive” sea life. How infinitely wise. Let us remember, though, that Mao was not as much a popular guerilla leader as a most ruthless and cunning War-lord. He also said that all power comes from a muzzle of a gun. Perhaps that will throw more light on the situation of Fallujah civilians vis-a-vis the insurgents. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/25 "2004-12-01T18:19:22Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > “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.** ‘Few hundred thousands’ is my estimate of hard-core Baath leadership that was required to subdue the whole of Iraq under Saddam’s cult. ‘Few hundred thousands’ killed in battle is not genocide, but executed is genocide. I agree, genocide is not acceptable. Still, the place and manner of killing makes a lot of difference, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/26 "2004-12-01T18:21:09Z")
Mr. Mao was not the only one to note that a successful guerrilla campaign depends on the support of the populace. IIRC, an esteemed Mr. Lawrence was also among the many who made similar observations. He was indeed a part of a guerilla movement. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/27 "2004-12-01T18:34:03Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Sometime when people feel threatened they will also respond with violence… For example? > [@SimonX](#): > > Perhaps some Iraqis’ aspirations involve the withdrawal of US troops. I acknowledged that already. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/28 "2004-12-01T18:44:54Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > **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? There’s always the exception that comfirms the rule. Witness the above post and you’ll note that I rightfully invoked the similitude between **Isk’s** disgusting bloodlust and The Final Solution without falling victim to the much-invoked Godwin’s Law. Scary only in the sense that he’s hardly the only rightwinger who “thinks” that way. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/29 "2004-12-01T18:47:21Z")
> [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](#): > > This is not a good analogy. The Nazis were attacking and killing people inside and outside their own country when the war began. Who was Iraq attacking? they didn’t even have the weapons [that Bushco said they had] to fight back with. WW2 was at least based on fact, while the current war with Iraq was based upon lies and more lies. Who benefits from people being killed for a lie? First, as Orwell said, “Even Hitler had good reasons.” Second, Saddam was terrorizing Iraqis all the time, and on the outside attacked Iran and Kuwait, before being disabled in 1991. Third, yes there were many lies, so many that nobody can find any truth on either side. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/30 "2004-12-01T18:49:17Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Mr. Lawrence … was indeed a part of a guerilla movement. British propaganda is the best of all. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/31 "2004-12-01T19:03:58Z")
Speaking of Orwell, this quote of his seems much more fitting for the OP: > [@](#): > > \*\*The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them \*\* ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/32 "2004-12-01T19:05:19Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > 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. This is the case in any war, however nobody asked “How can we win WWI or WWII if we continue to kill German people?” ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/33 "2004-12-01T19:10:20Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Second, Saddam was terrorizing Iraqis all the time, and on the outside attacked Iran and Kuwait, before being disabled in 1991. And the USA cared SO much about this that they waited until the next century to take action? ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/34 "2004-12-01T19:18:34Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Sometime when people feel threatened they will also respond with violence… > [@New Iskander](#): > > For example? Like Americans after 9/11 for example. You know that if the Brits back then thought like you… just about every founding father would have been shot or run away. Probably a good part of the rebellious elite too. Dirty insurgent colonials indeed. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/35 "2004-12-01T19:26:18Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > ‘Few hundred thousands’ is my estimate of hard-core Baath leadership that was required to subdue the whole of Iraq under Saddam’s cult. ‘Few hundred thousands’ killed in battle is not genocide, but executed is genocide. I agree, genocide is not acceptable. > [@New Iskander](#): > > Still, the place and manner of killing makes a lot of difference, doesn’t it? While they do make “a lot” of difference, they are not the sole or even sufficiently determining factors for making a distinction between warfare and genocide. The goal of the killing under discussion is not to achieve a political aim as in war, rather it is to kill a group of people. That a targetted group takes up arms to defend itself does not negate the genocidal nature of such an endeavor. If you’ll notice, while there’s is explicit mention of the intention, there’s no mention of either the place or manner of killing made in this conventional definition: “… genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Further, reaching the desired goal of a few hundred thousand dead Baathis might be problematic as the estimates of the insurgency range well below even a single hundred thousand. If these extra quarter million or so Baathis are not already willing to become members of an insurgency, why should we force their hand? Entirely aside from the question of genocide- even if wiping out a few hundred thousand Baathis would make Iraqis grateful and appreciative, it seems that it might have to be done with knives instead of aerial armaments as the latter tend to exact a much higher price from the Iraqis we’re trying to ingratiate ourselves with. Perhaps the loss of loved ones incidental to killing Baathis could lead some to decide that the defeat of the Baath party was not worth the price paid. So far we have not demonstrated a preference to engage in such discriminate killing as is done by knife blade. This shows Iraqis that as far as the Us is concerned the lives of the Iraqi civilians are not worth the additional risk to the lives of US soldiers that a campaign of killing that was more discriminate would entail. If Iraqis thought of themselves as members of their families and clans first and as members of political parties etc only in a tertiary manner, would it change your calculus of Iraqi killing? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/36 "2004-12-01T19:38:45Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > For example? I don’t often use :rolleyes: but now seems like an appropriate moment. Perhaps you’re merely being facetious. > [@New Iskander](#): > > British propaganda is the best of all. Are you trying to imply in your own way that successful insurgencies do not require a cooperative populace? > [@New Iskander](#): > > This is the case in any war, however nobody asked “How can we win WWI or WWII if we continue to kill German people?” I’m not at all sure how this isn’t a non sequitur. You asked why media didn’t make a distinction between the dead who were former members of the Baath party and those who were not. What does this have to do with WWI or II? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/37 "2004-12-01T19:47:19Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@New Iskander](#): > > > > Second, Saddam was terrorizing Iraqis all the time, and on the outside attacked Iran and Kuwait, before being disabled in 1991. > > > [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](#): > > > > And the USA cared SO much about this that they waited until the next century to take action? Why are members of Team Bush associating with and raising funds for the terrorist organization Hussein used for “terrorizing Iraqis all the time”? Riddle me that anyone who wishes. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/38 "2004-12-01T21:18:25Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > I don’t often use :rolleyes: but now seems like an appropriate moment. > Perhaps you’re merely being facetious. No, seriously, give me an example from history of a docile populace provoked to violent revolt by sudden threat. You will usually find that populace was in all-out revolt already, which the threat of violent suppression might further exacerbate. > [@SimonX](#): > > Are you trying to imply in your own way that successful insurgencies do not require a cooperative populace? That was a tactical maneuver to befuddle our Irish and Welsh Dopers, so I could get a breather. OK, seriously I would say that successful insurgency requires considerable support from at least 20-30% of population. > [@SimonX](#): > > You asked why media didn’t make a distinction between the dead who were former members of the Baath party and those who were not. What does this have to do with WWI or II? The very approach is completely different then and now. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/39 "2004-12-01T21:50:24Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > No, seriously, give me an example from history of a docile populace provoked to violent revolt by sudden threat. You will usually find that populace was in all-out revolt already, which the threat of violent suppression might further exacerbate. Whence the discussion of revolution? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376/40 "2004-12-01T21:53:51Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > The very approach is completely different then and now. The situations are different as well, we weren’t fighting an insurgency in a country we had already defeated and occupied during WWI or WWII. Your WWII analogy is ridiculously flawed and shows a shallow understanding of what is going on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-popular-insurgency-again/277376.md?page=3)