SayAnything Blog
Can We Stop Calling It An Insugency Now?
Comments (58) | Full Version | Back
Rob - 04:07am on 07/01/2005
The media picked up on the word "insurgents" some time ago as a nice term to keep from calling the terrorists in Iraq just that, terrorists. Men, women, and children (some of which have no idea what they're doing) have increasingly gone after their "own" people in an attempt to create chaos. They know they can't beat the American Armed Services, so they attempt to put so much fear in the hearts of the Iraqi people that they will opt for security over freedom. Sadly, as we have seen time and time again, this tactic works far better on the hearts of Americans than Iraqis. The Iraqi people get it. They know this road is tough, but they are not willing to go back. They know they must continue to push on and defeat the forces in their midst that wish to do them harm:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - U.S. and Iraqi officials have long believed that foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are behind most suicide missions, and the recent wave of bloody strikes has confirmed that thinking.

Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind the near-daily stream of suicide attacks over the past six months, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.

The key role of foreign fighters in suicide attacks is one reason many senior military officials, including the top U.S. general in the Middle East, tend to view the war in Iraq as slowly developing into an international struggle against militant Islam.

Iraqis have carried out less than 10 percent of more than 500 suicide attacks since 2003, according to one defense official. At least 213 attacks have occurred this year - 172 by vehicle and 41 by bombers on foot - according to a count by The Associated Press.


These aren't insurgents, rising up against an oppressive occupation. These are terrorists coming from all over the area to fight, indirectly, against America. This battlefield is part of the War on Terrorism. There is no denying that.

Some will say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In simple terms, they are right. But it's really a straw-man argument to make because no one ever tried to directly tie the two events together. I'll let the President, from Tuesday night, explain:

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror.
...
Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.


The WTC attack of 9/11 was one battlefield, a battle which the terrorist clearly won. That is why America woke up and realized we needed to fight this war differently than we had been. Nothing about Saddam changed with 9/11, but our dealing with him DID change. Now that the fight is in Iraq, the terrorists realize all to well that they must not lose this battle.

It is not insurgents in Iraq, they are terrorists. Can we please call them such?
Read Comments (58)