There Are No Insurgents in Iraq

Take a quick trip to Dictionary.com sometime soon and look up these two words: insurgent and resistance. For the lazy, I will quote the relevant text in those web pages:

• Insurgent: (2.) One who rises "in revolt against established authority, especially a government."
• Resistance: (3.) "An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation."

The vast majority of journalists, government officials, and bloggers use the term insergent to label the perpetrators of suicide bombings, the folks that attack military bases, and sometimes people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not sure exactly when this term was coined, but I am willing to bet that it occurred during one of the military briefings (the ones in the Spielbergesque studio) shortly after Mr. Bush made his premature declaration of victory on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Furthermore, It is a term which was carefully chosen to imply either:

1. The United States Army was the "established authority" in Iraq, or
2. The United States Army was the "government" in Iraq.

Neither of these assumptions is or has ever been true.

You see, when Saddam was captured, the country of Iraq essentially had no government. At that point, it became an occupied country. Therefore, the people who showed their defiance to the occupying military forces were, in fact, the Resistance. No government, no insurgency.

We are always hearing of Iraqi insurgents, yet there is little to support the justification of using this word. The message is repeated over and over again, ad nauseum, until becomes embedded in our mythology. Eventually, a dreadful association is made: the military holds the authority.

However, in Iraq, the indigenous population, by and large, has been showing resistance to the actions of the military forces that have decimated the country -- those misled soldiers who have effectively condemned the country to living standards equal to those in the Third-World nations. The brave men and women who have been putting their lives on the line can only be called occupiers. They are not a policing force, nor are they a governing body. They are a killing machine.

And, as efficient deliverers of death, the United States armed forces are second to none. We should not confuse their purpose with political doublespeak. They attacked, they killed, and they now occupy. The Iraqis who fight back are the Resistance.

Mea Culpa

Although this blog has not been running too long, I have expressed my opinions on different matters for many years. You just won't find them anywhere, since they are all either forgotten or stuffed in a folder in a box in the attic. Perhaps one good thing about this blog is that I can put my opinions in a place where others may read them.

Not that many are reading my blog right now...

I have always tried to see more than one side of controversial issues. At times I can be firmly dispassionate, casting aside all emotions while trying to figure things out. And, having said that, I should also mention that I can also become overwhelmingly passionate about some subjects, virtually bypassing all of the inhibitors wired into my frontal lobe.

The most enlightening times in my life are those when I first react emotionally to some dilemma, and, as I take a look at the problem from all sides, slowly shed the emotion and find myself becoming more and more objective. One of these issues is my opinion of the state of the United States' government -- specifically the Bush administration.

I was once a rather rabid lefty, ready to bite anyone who thought George W. Bush was a great and compassionate leader. What passed for common sense in my mind clearly pointed to the obvious arrogance and disrespect that the President of the United States (POTUS) unremittingly showed to the world every time a camera or microphone was pointed his way. So, as most humans are wont to do, my knee-jerk reaction to someone who couldn't or wouldn't listen to (my) reasoning was to verbally berate them, and in a way make me feel superior. Yes, when I made it known that some person was a myopic dolt, I felt better because I wasn't one of them.

It was rather fortunate, then, that I began scouring the web, reading opinions and facts from all directions: left, right, and the various points in-between. As a bonus, I was able to debate many things with several close friends of mine. I have engaged in many spirited discussions, most of which have lately surrounded the afore-mentioned POTUS.

My ranting began by bearing the quality of deliverance with a generous serving of froth. But, as I listened more and digested the words of other passionate voices, I found myself searching for genuine facts and framing my arguments in a more logical fashion. Above all else, I realized that it was very disingenuous of myself to base an opinion or argument on truths that held no more substance than the vapors which rise from a lake on a cold morning. Because, as soon as the truth became known -- much like the sun rising in the day -- the fabricated facts disappeared, and I found myself playing the charlatan.

Many of us as children have either used or had become victims to the age old taunt: "It takes one to know one." It should come as no surprise to anyone, therefore, that one con would recognize another con or one charlatan another. Conning, lying, deceiving, and mistreating require certain actions, words, and nuances which are obvious, as long as you know what to look for. It follows, then, that I should be quite adept at identifying overly-emotional zealots and close-minded buffoons, primarily because I have worn those masks before.

So, if I express an opinion which you think is either over-the-top or baseless and meaningless, then you should take a moment to see if this is the road down which your own reasoning has taken you. And, if I really and truly have gone out of control, then you, dear reader, must tell me so.

Until that time, however, please rest assured that all opinions expressed in this blog are the product of intense reasoning and examination. I say this because I will now begin to publish my opinions on matters which I strongly believe are quite sound and reasonable.

Systematic Torture

Let's just call it what it is: torture. Let us also find a name for America's international network of clandestine prisons. While we're doing that, perhaps we should then identify that which we have now become.

The press in the United States has been nothing more than an extension of the U.S. government for far too many years. It came as no surprise to me, then, that foreign journalists -- namely Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark -- co-wrote a very informative article that begins with Afghan woes and ends with a startling portrait of imperial arrogance. Throughout the entire piece, Levy and Scott-Clark completely obliterate the rosy picture of supposed democracy that the American people believe is the status quo in Afghanistan. They also boldly state that which no american press agent will ever write: America is becoming that which it so loudly claims is attempting to eradicate.

Legitimatizing torture and the results thereby obtained used to be the modus operandi of governments the U.S. used to call "dictatorships" and "evil". Holding prisoners without reason, evidence, or due process of law is what we used to accuse the old Soviet Union of doing.

What the hell are we doing?