I've been seeing ‘insurgents’ pop up a lot in reports of what is going on in Iraq. Since Donald Rumsfeld was so fond of the dictionary in the ‘slogging’ incident last month, I thought I'd look up this one. A flag has just been raised in my mind that this is a different word that has been used in the past, and I'm just a little suspicious of it.
In Webster's Unabridged Dictionary from 1913 (isn't the public domain fun?) we have:
A person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws; a rebel
Merriam-Webster (online currently) adds:
a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
For those who tend to forget the stronger meaning of “belligerent,’—like when you're not talking about kids causing trouble—I think the first definition applies (from M-W again):
waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war
Now, amazingly enough, I must admit I don't know the specific state of conflict between the United States and Iraq at this point. I don't recall seeing anyone sign a document of surrender, nor do I remember a specific declaration of war (though perhaps the events of 1991 carry over to the present time). Still, I think much of the public would tend to believe we're at war over there.
Anyway, getting back to the point—I don't really think that the term ‘insurgent’ should apply to people who shoot down Chinook helicopters and bomb international agencies. I would consider the term applicable to bombings of police stations and portions of the Iraqi infrastructure. I suppose it's a thin line I'm drawing, but, uh…Okay, okay. I was bored.
Posted by mike at November 2, 2003 11:24 PM | News , War | TrackBack