Writing in The Guardian today, Oliver Burkeman addresses Donald Rumsfeld's recent comment that the word "insurgency" is not appropriate for describing the armed opposition forces in Iraq. Burkeman considers, then dismisses, a number of other possible words, including "terrorists," "resistance," and "paramilitary," before concluding that "insurgency" is the best word after all, that in any case it has already been established through precedent, and that Rumsfeld is just going to have to put up with it.
Burkeman's reasons for rejecting the word "terrorists" are curious. In his words:
"'Terrorists' is out, not least because it seems to imply attacks primarily on civilians, and to assume the legitimacy of a government whose legitimacy is, in fact, widely disputed."
But disputed by whom? The Iraqi government was elected democratically through an election that a majority of Iraqis voted in. How much more legitimate could a government be? Certainly the current government is far more legitimate than the previous government led by Saddam, which attained power through force. Those in Iraq who dispute the legitimacy of the government are primarily the insurgents and their supporters.
Furthermore, the insurgents have carried out numerous attacks on civilian targets. While it might not be true that they have primarily targeted civilians, it is the case that they carry out more attacks on civilians than on coalition troops, and that the attacks are far more lethal. Human Rights Watch, never a friend of the US, recently published
a damning report detailing how the insurgents' targeting of civilians violates international law:
"Since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in March 2003, armed opposition groups have purposely killed thousands of civilians—men, women and children. Across the country, insurgents have used car bombs and suicide bombers … to maximize the number of civilian injuries and deaths. They have assassinated government officials, politicians, judges, journalists, humanitarian aid workers and those deemed to be collaborating with the foreign forces in Iraq. They have tortured and summarily executed, sometimes by beheading, persons in their custody."
Many other groups that I imagine Burkeman would consider "terrorists" also attack military targets as well as civilian targets, but this does not mean that they cannot be called terrorists.
But perhaps the problem lies with Burkemans's definition of "insurgency." The title of his article is: "What do we call
people fighting the US in Iraq?" Similarly, he says that a consensus has been reached on the term "insurgency" as a way of describing "
fighters attacking US forces in Iraq." But in fact the media use the word "insurgency" to describe not only those fighting the US, but also those fighting the (legitimate) Iraqi government, Iraqi security forces, foreign civilians, Shiite civilians including women and children, even Jordanian civilians. If Burkeman could actually acknowledge this, then he might realize that "terrorists" – that is, groups who target civilians with a view to overthrowing a legitimate government – is indeed a highly appropriate word for describing the Iraqi insurgents.
