Posted on 11/30/2005 5:17:03 PM PST by SandRat
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2005 – "Insurgents" just seems like too positive a word to describe terrorists in Iraq and implies a level of legitimacy they don't have and don't deserve, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Pentagon reporters Nov. 29. The secretary mused during a Pentagon news briefing about terms that might be more appropriate: "terrorists" and "enemies of the government" among them.
"We frequently call them insurgents, (but) I'm a little reluctant to, for some reason," Rumsfeld said. "They don't have broad support in that country. ... They're against a legitimate government. ... There are also growing divisions among the enemies of the government."
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, slipped later during the briefing and used the "i" word. "I have to use the word 'insurgent,' because I can't think of a better word right now," he said with a smile.
"Enemies of the legitimate Iraq government," Rumsfeld responded, drawing laughter from reporters. "How's that?"
Jesting aside, both Rumsfeld and Pace affirmed that the enemy threat in Iraq is no laughing matter.
But Rumsfeld said he believes divisions are popping up within the terrorists groups in Iraq and that they're continuing to lose popular support. He predicted that Iraq's upcoming Dec. 15 elections will take more wind out of the terrorists' sails.
"When the Iraqi people have their own constitution, that they wrote, that they voted for, and then they elect people under that constitution, it becomes increasingly clear that anyone going around killing the Iraqi people (is) fighting against a legitimate government," the secretary said.
"They are against a legitimate constitution, (and) they will be against people who have been legitimately elected under the Iraqi constitution," he said.
Once Iraq's new democratic government stands up, "any contention that there's some sort of an occupation taking place or that coalition forces are there at anything other than the invitation of the government and the United Nations becomes a weaker argument," Rumsfeld said.
Success in fighting terrorism is critical to U.S. security, he said.
"Let's be clear," Rumsfeld emphasized. "U.S. forces are in Iraq to help the Iraqis fight the terrorists there, so we don't have to fight them here in the United States."
You tell 'em Rummy!
Bravo!
Rummy yanks us back to reality. When did this "insurgent" label become popular with the media, anyway?
Rumsfeld is telling it like it is. Very few of the forces attacking American troops are native Iraquis, and most who are tend to be either Saddam loyalists or in it for money.
Hmmm, sniff, sniff, sniff!
I'm sure Rummy would be glad to shake your hand in welcome to FR too.
After the elections take place in December, the media will probably refer to them as "rebels".
Finally, someone in the GOP adminstration gets it right.
Amen Rummy.
"We frequently call them insurgents, (but) I'm a little reluctant to, for some reason," Rumsfeld said. "They don't have broad support in that country. ... They're against a legitimate government. ... There are also growing divisions among the enemies of the government."
Bush in his speech today used a term I hadn't heard before: "rejectionist."
"As we fight the enemy in Iraq, every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation deserves an unwavering commitment to the mission - and a clear strategy for victory. A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein - and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group.
Not all Sunnis fall into the rejectionist camp. Of those that do, most are not actively fighting us - but some give aid and comfort to the enemy. Many Sunnis boycotted the January elections - yet as democracy takes hold in Iraq, they are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process has hurt their interests. And today, those who advocate violent opposition are being increasingly isolated by Sunnis who choose peaceful participation in the democratic process. Sunnis voted in the recent constitutional referendum in large numbers - and Sunni coalitions have formed to compete in next month’s elections - or, this month’s elections. We believe that, over time, most rejectionists will be persuaded to support a democratic Iraq led by a federal government that is a strong enough government to protect minority rights.
The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein - people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. They lack popular support and therefore cannot stop Iraq’s democratic progress. And over time, they can be marginalized and defeated by the Iraqi people and the security forces of a free Iraq.
The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda . Many are foreigners who are coming to fight freedom’s progress in Iraq. This group includes terrorists from Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and Iran, and Egypt, and Sudan, and Yemen, and Libya, and other countries. Our commanders believe they’re responsible for most of the suicide bombings, and the beheadings, and the other atrocities we see on our television."
source: Bush speech text http://news.ft.com/cms/s/799de108-61f3-11da-8470-0000779e2340.html
BTTT
The rebels of 1776 were insurgent against the British Crown. The rebels of 1776 did not behead or blow up innocent bystanders, to my knowledge, let alone British soldiers. They declared their intentions against specific authority.
The term insurgent has been promoted mainly by the MSM to portray what are really islamic terrorist murderer filth (itmf) in a more positive light and to seperate them from the acts of the 9/11 murderers. That way, they can be against our efforts against itmf in Iraq.
Another term that is, IMO, wrongly used is "suicide bomber". If someone kills her husband and then herself it is referred to, rightly, as a murder/suicide. Someone who kills itself while in the act of murdering innocents is a homicide bomber.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.