the "insurgency"

insurgency is, by definition, a rebellion against civil authority.

'but,' you may object, 'when the insurgency started iraq had no civil authority, only our military authority.'

excellent point! i concede.

in fact, this so-called insurgency began shortly after saddam hussein went into hiding, so there was no authority at all, just a state of war.

we called it an "insurgency" to delegitimize it. "resistance" would sound like something we could approve. "guerrilla war" would be demoralizing, because a guerrilla war can go on for years.

you may or may not recall, but just before he dropped out of sight, saddam announced that iraqis should begin "unconventional warfare" against the invaders. he meant guerrilla war.

you likely remember when reichsmarshall rumsfeld—or was it vice-führer cheney?—read from a dictionary to prove the guerrilla war wasn't a guerrilla war.

it was a selective reading—aka cherry-picking. "guerrilla" has more than one sense, and our spin doctor chose carefully.

it was only a matter of time before the bush legion started insisting "it's not an occupation! it's a liberation!" that too was part of the information war—which is really a disinformation campaign.

as for the claim that the "insurgency" is trying to stop democracy from succeeding: well, yeah, but only because we back it.

the goal of the resistance is to make us fail, along with anything or anybody we support or that supports us—not because we're democrats, but because we're foreign invaders: they'd fight restoration of the caliphate if we backed it!

that's why they won't stop fighting till we leave or they get wiped out. anybody who says they'll "sit back and wait" if we announce a withdrawal timetable doesn't know what he's talking about.

what could be better for us than if they "sit back and wait"?