![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseDon’t call it ‘insurgency’: Rumsfeld
(Yahoo!News article.)
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thinks that the insurgents in Iraq shouldn’t be called ‘insurgents’ because it gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit.
Rumsfeld instead referred to the guerrillas in Iraq as "the terrorists" and "the enemies of the government." U.S. military statements also have referred to insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces."
Other than the last phrase those other terms would fit but that doesn’t mean that the word ‘insurgents’ is any less valid and even with the last phrase it would all be a matter of your own perspective. The insurgents probably don’t consider themselves ‘anti-Iraqi forces’ but rather patriots or some such.
Of course propaganda begins with language and imagery so it’s not surprising that there’s issue with the use of words, it’s just a little bizarre to fuss over the supposed connotations of one word to one person and expect that everyone else uses it in the same manner. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter anyway.
Besides the phrases that Rumsfeld is coming up with are rather clumsy and ham-fisted. Anyone who watches the news feeds knows what the Iraqi insurgent groups are doing and that they are evidently anti-their current government and using terrorist tactics to accomplish their means.
It’s nothing new; people have been doing it all over the world for years, it’s just that the way the term ‘terrorist’ is appended to something seems to imply that the perpetrators are external forces and not actual nationals of the given country, or at least that seems to be the way it is often used.
Rumsfeld described the enemy in Iraq as a mixture of "foreign terrorists," Saddam loyalists, Sunni Arab "rejectionists," criminals, and "people that do it for money."
It’s nothing more than semantic wankery really; propaganda to make you feel that it’s not your fellow nationals who could commit such doings pretty much. The thing is, in this case, these are Iraqis so the linguistics of the day slaps the term ‘insurgents’ on them.
"I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don't have a legitimate gripe," Rumsfeld said.
It’s a war of words pretty much with American propaganda versus Iraqi insurgent propaganda. Though Rumsfeld doesn’t really help his cause by implying that he’s the source of arbitration over what is and what isn’t legitimate.
Rumsfeld and reporters previously have sparred over the dictionary definition of words such as "quagmire" and "slog."
The man also has issues with linguistics in general it would seem. Granted he’s trying to make it sound better for reporting world-wide and back home, that’s understandable. It’s probably a good chunk of his job to put a good face on it but there’s a point at which you have to stop picking at every word that you feel implies whatever you think it implies or at least you have to be subtle about it. Or, if you really do have an unquestioning state behind you then you can do what ever the hell you please: unfortunately for him, Rumsfeld hasn’t and Joseph Gerbils, he ain’t.
Besides, if he really doesn’t like the use of the word ‘insurgents’ and absolutely must use an alternative, instead of cooking up comically unwieldy phrases how about calling them ‘partisans’ instead?
(Yahoo!News article.)
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thinks that the insurgents in Iraq shouldn’t be called ‘insurgents’ because it gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit.
Rumsfeld instead referred to the guerrillas in Iraq as "the terrorists" and "the enemies of the government." U.S. military statements also have referred to insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces."
Other than the last phrase those other terms would fit but that doesn’t mean that the word ‘insurgents’ is any less valid and even with the last phrase it would all be a matter of your own perspective. The insurgents probably don’t consider themselves ‘anti-Iraqi forces’ but rather patriots or some such.
Of course propaganda begins with language and imagery so it’s not surprising that there’s issue with the use of words, it’s just a little bizarre to fuss over the supposed connotations of one word to one person and expect that everyone else uses it in the same manner. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter anyway.
Besides the phrases that Rumsfeld is coming up with are rather clumsy and ham-fisted. Anyone who watches the news feeds knows what the Iraqi insurgent groups are doing and that they are evidently anti-their current government and using terrorist tactics to accomplish their means.
It’s nothing new; people have been doing it all over the world for years, it’s just that the way the term ‘terrorist’ is appended to something seems to imply that the perpetrators are external forces and not actual nationals of the given country, or at least that seems to be the way it is often used.
Rumsfeld described the enemy in Iraq as a mixture of "foreign terrorists," Saddam loyalists, Sunni Arab "rejectionists," criminals, and "people that do it for money."
It’s nothing more than semantic wankery really; propaganda to make you feel that it’s not your fellow nationals who could commit such doings pretty much. The thing is, in this case, these are Iraqis so the linguistics of the day slaps the term ‘insurgents’ on them.
"I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don't have a legitimate gripe," Rumsfeld said.
It’s a war of words pretty much with American propaganda versus Iraqi insurgent propaganda. Though Rumsfeld doesn’t really help his cause by implying that he’s the source of arbitration over what is and what isn’t legitimate.
Rumsfeld and reporters previously have sparred over the dictionary definition of words such as "quagmire" and "slog."
The man also has issues with linguistics in general it would seem. Granted he’s trying to make it sound better for reporting world-wide and back home, that’s understandable. It’s probably a good chunk of his job to put a good face on it but there’s a point at which you have to stop picking at every word that you feel implies whatever you think it implies or at least you have to be subtle about it. Or, if you really do have an unquestioning state behind you then you can do what ever the hell you please: unfortunately for him, Rumsfeld hasn’t and Joseph Gerbils, he ain’t.
Besides, if he really doesn’t like the use of the word ‘insurgents’ and absolutely must use an alternative, instead of cooking up comically unwieldy phrases how about calling them ‘partisans’ instead?
