unless such economic issues are dealt with, there is a nearly inexhaustible pool to recruit people to kill American soldiers.

So apparently you don't agree with the standard defintion of terrorism as attacks against civilians, you think terrorism is when occupying soldiers are attacked?

That's unusual for someone on the left.

My opinion, it's a murky area, because an attack against the U.S.S. Cole or marine barracks in Lebanon or is seen by the attackers as a military op while the attacked call it terrorism.

What you are arguing all depends upon your definition of terrorism. Most Al Qaeda types are not involved for the money, there's been plenty of studies done of the Islamic terrorist attacks against civilians outside Iraq, and the majority have ufficient economic wherewithal, not to mention often educated backgrounds, and they are motivated by ideology, either true believers in the ideology or attracted to the ideology by peer group issues.

Certainly lots of Iraqis attacking soldiers or other Iraqi sects are motivated by money. Many of those, I have often read, don't really have strong allegiances at all, such as they join the police force and then take work on the side with some Mahdi army group for the extra bucks, which might include setting up a IED one day or helping to kidnap some Sunni another. You call that kind of thing terrorism? I don't, it's more like being a mercenary withing a multi-sectarian civil war.

But by making this argument, aren't you putting yourself on the side of the crowd that likes the label of "enemy combatants" so that they don't have to give them the honor of Geneva Conventions? They're all terrorists?

And it's not news! Leave "terrorism" out of it. It's a "duh." Everyone knew shortly after sending Saddam's army home, with a ridiculous unemployment rate in Iraq already going, and everyone allowed guns, that if the Iraqi economy didn't get moving fast, that there would be some big trouble coming. It's just that the neo-cons thought it would all happen like magic, little happy capitalist enterprises springing like weeds after a rain, they had this idea that everyone there was going to be like the Kurds. Instead what they found was a large population used to minimal welfare after years of sanctions.

I stand by my statement. He's making an argument using terms that agree with a conservative definition of terrorism, one that many on the left have been fighting for a long time. It's quite surprising to me that he is making this argument. It's usually Bush, McCain & Lieberman telling me that we're fighting "the terrorists" in Iraq.

I'm really not interested in debating it with you, only in pointing it out to him. You'll have to find another debating partner if that's what you want.

You took the opportunity to take a gratuitous swipe at the 'left.'

I find that a very odd interpretation, actually, it's quite wrong. Read it again or carry on with your mischaracterizations as you like.

For six years, many have told us that global economic inequality and poverty was irrelevant to the rise of terrorism, so that military means, not social change, was the key to taking on extremist Islam.

Nathan: I disagree with the way you frame the issue. Iraqis are pissed off because a bunch of American teenagers who don't know squat about their culture have taken over their country and are bossing them around while shooting at everything that goes 'boo.'

I swear, the easiest way to understand those "damn foreigners" is to pretend they are us. If the Chinese army was roaming around Brooklyn and shooting Americans at will, people would rebel not because they are unemployed, or illiterate, or economically distressed. They would rebel because heavily armed Chinese soldiers are roaming the streets of Brooklyn.

In other words, if Iraq was Disneyland and every Iraqi was driving a ferrari, guess what, they'd still be shooting at Americans.

We would do the same. Wouldn't we? So why is that so hard to understand?

PS: that NYT article is racist crap: if Arabs are shooting at us, it's not because they want us to leave: they're only doing it for the money... Yes, of course, we kill for freedom, they kill for money...

Valdron: I don't want to start a debate here, but it seems to me that your characterization is factually incorrect and slanderous. Our folks have precise and detailed rules of engagement. My personal experience suggests that these are not just a figment.

Tragically, fire discipline really doesn't matter much, because this war is personal - if you kill my brother, I don't much care about your reasons.

Your other point about the economic component of the war is completely correct. Many of the IED emplacers are "disposables" - the insurgents that matter are the money-and-weapons providers, the emplacers are often people in it only for the money.

We could lessen the violence considerably by providing gainful employment; I don't understand why this wasn't undertaken on a massive scale early on. Personally, I'd rather spend treasure than blood. Bribes, if you will. Instead, we spend money on ourselves. One could quibble and point to reconstruction projects, but the numbers I have heard give the lie to this as a serious component of our policy.

You're right that I slipped in that definition of terrorism, but it's also true that economic desperation means there will be an inexhaustible supply of folks to kill civilians as well, if such is seen as a way out of a global system of inequality and economic desperation.

artappraiser said:

I stand by my statement. He's making an argument using terms that agree with a conservative definition of terrorism, one that many on the left have been fighting for a long time. It's quite surprising to me that he is making this argument. It's usually Bush, McCain & Lieberman telling me that we're fighting "the terrorists" in Iraq.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.

Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter.

I don't want to start a debate here, but it seems to me that your characterization is factually incorrect and slanderous. Our folks have precise and detailed rules of engagement. My personal experience suggests that these are not just a figment.

I agree that it isn't really the time or place for a debate on the subject, so I'll restrict myself to a few comments.

First, I think the comment was fair in that I was referencing the previous comment about "chinese soldiers shooting up Americans..." made previously.

Secondly, while there are indeed rules of engagement, there are all too many reports of civilians being killed at checkpoints, in aerial bombings, of midnight raids, firearms pointed at people driving too close, etc. etc. Then there are the 'bad apples' who give everyone a bad name. I think that from the Iraqi point of view they're somewhat unimpressed with the rules of engagement, and their perception is closer to a bunch of yahoos running around shooting the place up.

Your other point about the economic component of the war is completely correct. Many of the IED emplacers are "disposables" - the insurgents that matter are the money-and-weapons providers, the emplacers are often people in it only for the money.

I don't think I entirely agree with that. There is an element of truth in it, certainly.

But 180 attacks a day are not the result of some rich Baathist doling out cash.

Rather, its like this. You can't get a job, you see your children starving, every day and in every way things are getting worse and worse. Your Doctor has fled the country, you are down to one hour of electricity a day, and your water is a funny colour and smells, and you have to keep it in a bucket because the water taps only work once in a while... Your life is miserable and stressed, and you want to strike out at the people who have wrecked your country... Who are you going to attack.

The average soldier may not feel responsible for unemployment in Iraq, but guaranteed, he is going to be blamed for the misery. Is life unfair? Sure. Tell it to the guy whose child is starving to death.

Actually having a functioning economy would not eliminate the insurgency. After all, there were insurgencies in Algeria, in Vietnam, in the 13 Colonies, Rhodesia and in Northern Ireland, all of which were relatively prosperous and stable.

On the other hand, economic deprivation contributed to insurgencies in Kenya, in Nicaragua, Cuba, and to the Russian and French Revolutions.

We could lessen the violence considerably by providing gainful employment; I don't understand why this wasn't undertaken on a massive scale early on.

The problem is considerably more profound. The United States occupation worked very hard to destroy the Iraq economy, no lie.

* Dissolving the Army and police threw hundreds of thousands of men back into the economy, unemployed, with no means to make a living. This was a multiplier shock, since without their earning power, families were affected, and without their spending, the effect rippled through.

* Radical debaathification compounded the effect, throwing hundreds of thousands more out. The effect was worse because this includes a lot of skilled technicians, teachers, administrators, bureaucrats etc., ie, people who got things done and made society work. Big blow to the economy.

* Bremer's right wing ideological theories shut down and destroyed much of the state industries and business. The result... even more unemployment, a loss of production, and a loss of productivity in the economy. If you practice slash and burn agriculture, you get a crop, but at the start all you get is ashes, and in the long run you destroy the soil. 'Privatization' and 'anti-socialist' efforts burned large sections of the economy to ashes.

* Bremer also instituted a series of ideological policies which caused untold damage. One of these was elminating all tariff and customs duties. What happened? Iraq was flooded with ultra-cheap goods and imports. Local manufacturing and production was wiped out, Iraqi's money flooded out of the country. It was a disaster, like introducing rabbits to Australia, except faster and more virulent.

I could go on and on, but I've made my point. Either by accident or design, American policies and actions consistently impaired or unravelled the Iraqi economy.

When some unidentified Arabic yahoo plants his IED, he's got a really good idea what is responsible for his misery, and that's the guys for the red white and blue.

Capt. Fleming says:

“The primary motivator is economic — they’re angry men because they don’t have jobs,” he said. “The detainee population is overwhelmingly illiterate and unemployed. Extremists have been very successful at spreading their ideology to economically strapped Iraqis with little to no formal education.”

This comment illustrates perfectly why America is losing this war.

Poor Capt. Fleming. So out of his depth.

And I bet he'll retire saying: "But they never defeated us on the battlefield! "

The cluelessness.

I read this a while back, "Paying Iraqi companies to rebuild Iraq would have saved US taxpayers 90% of costs and been far more efficient. Iraqi firms were shut out of the process because they were state-owned."

Stuff like this - and there's a mountain of it on Iraq - drives me nuts. (Read the Iraqi Constitution and you'll know a good bit of the reason why Sunnis and Shias are at each other's throats. You'll also see our big, fat rich hand prints all over it.)

"the guys for the red white and blue" are actually George's sacrificial lambs.

"Violence" is probably a better word than "terrorism." The collapse of the economic and social order (maybe more than poverty per se) usually leads to violence. That said, the kind of ideologically-motivated violence that we see from Islamic fundamentalists (or from other "revolutionaries" of various stripes) often originates in the middle and upper classes--usually among bored youth looking for some cause to bring meaning to their lives. The kind of chaotic violence we see in Iraq is the result of both phenomena. There are the bored "elites" who are fighting for meaning and there are the impovershed masses fighting to relieve the hopelessness of their situation. Combine these two forces--an idealistic cause for the elites and real suffering among the masses--and you have the makings of a revolution.

Actually, Nathan Newman, whose work I otherwise greatly admire, has penned arguably his weakest piece ever. I grant him that unemployment makes things worse. But lots of other things do, too.
But 99.9% of the problem is the US presence.
Nothing wrong technically about discussing the remaining 0.1% but to ignore the elephant in the room is disconcerting.

Nathan quotes a piece where essentially some captain says with a straight-face: "I just locked up 24,500 of these bastards, but gee let me guess why Iraqis are upset? Oh yes, Wal-Mart has no jobs for them!" Now that he locked up 24,500 of them couldn't possibly be the main reason why their family members might be upset.
If only the French hadn't starved during the German occupation, the Resistance would have gone away....

This notion that if only Iraqis were better fed they wouldn't be causing as much ruckus manages the feat of being wrong, pernicious, and noxious all at once. Not bad.

Anyway, sTivo, I thought the comments section was the place to argue and disagree, but maybe I was misinformed and it's really the place to hold hands and sing kumbaya.

Oh, also, when you write this:

... the inability to find a job is one of the driving forces leading Iraqi people to join an organization officially labeled as "terrorist" - namely al Qaeda in Iraq

you forget to quote the relevant part of the NYT piece: Of the 24,500 detainees, only 1,800 are al Qaeda. Not only that, but the big story is in fact the exact opposite: how ordinary Sunnis are joining the fight against al Qaeda. So, it seems, despite unemployment and all, Iraqis are joining ranks to fight al Qaeda. Oh well...

Back to Nathan. His logic is flawed; in fact self-contradictory. The proposition that a lack of good jobs sustains the insurgency is not stable (in a dynamical-systems sense).
Picture the situation where your average Ahmed, frustrated by his inability to find a job in the local Ramadi Wal-Mart, joins the insurgency. Next thing he knows, he's stuck in Camp Bucca with his 24,500 buddies (all frustrated Wal-Mart job seekers).

Now you have easily 10 times that number, 245,000, mightily upset that brother or cousin or uncle Ahmed is wasting away in a US jail when all the peaceloving Ahmed wanted to do was to put food on his family (sorry) and mind his own business. In other words, this was not the crazy uncle in the attic finding demons everywhere, but just the nice, warm-hearted Ahmed who always brought presents to the kids when he visited.
Of the 245K family members, you have, say, 50,000 men mad as hell that Capt Fleming's buddies hurt uncle Ahmed. That's why they are mad: not because Wal-Mart doesn't have 50,000 jobs for them.

And now I'll let you guess what they're going to do about it.

I'm surprised that you are making it a left-right thing, when the distinction of targeting, or not targeting, civilians is common in history and international law. For example, while US sailors found their acts incomprehensible and frightening (if not lower-case terrifying), I've never seen Japanese kamikaze pilots, carrying out attacks against strictly military targets, called terrorists.

Japanese POW staff did terrible things, and indeed against imprisoned civilians as well as soldiers. Still, few have called this "terrorism", as most definitions of terrorism accept that it has some political purpose, even if done by anarchists. POW guards and commanders were hanged by the neck until dead because they committed war crimes that are usually distinct from terrorism.

WWI and WWII attacks on civilian populations, by uniformed regular combatants or irregulars, were often called terror; the Germans called this sort of action schrecklichkeit, and it was meant to terrify, as in the WWI shooting of hostages and the burning of the library at Louvain (Belgium), or the WWII exterminations of the villages at Lidice (Czechoslovakia) and Oradour-sur-Glane (France). Atrocities by individual Japanese soldiers may not qualify as terrorism, but such things as the Rape of Nanking, of which the high command was thoroughly aware, was not.

WWII strategic bombing can be hard to classify, as, by modern standards, it was very imprecise. Still, most discussions I have seen consider attacks aimed at specific military targets such as the Ploesti refineries or the Peenemunde missile test facility to be legitimate military operations. Sir Arthur Harris' "dehousing" targeting was specifically aimed at civilian workers and industry, and I tend to think of that as terrorism -- while bombing the same people at work in the factory is not (see Aquinas' Principle of Double Effect for an ethical discussion)

As far as Iraq, I tend to use the term "insurgent". Insurgents shooting at soldiers are not particularly terrorists, although they do run into the problem of unlawful combatant status. Insurgents who drive bombs into large civilian crowds, however, do qualify as terrorists.

If the "Left" has been fighting such distinctions, I suggest that particular part of the left is conflating so many acts as to result in something meaningless. Now, if you are referring to Bush saying we are fighting the "terrorists" in Iraq, with the idea that we won't have to fight them here, I agree that usage is meaningless.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Secondly, while there are indeed rules of engagement, there are all too many reports of civilians being killed at checkpoints, ...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Terrorism. The word has been turned into a "tastes great - less filling" marketing buzz word. At least to the people far removed from it's causes and effects. For those who live daily with war, starvation and poverty it's meaning is somewhat different and far more personal. And while those of us on the outside debate the finer points of what does or does not apply to the word terrorism, people continue to suffer and die and it continues to grow.

The fact that "terrorism", in the form we chose to see it, is feeding off the suffering, poor and uneducated elicits a simple response from me - no kidding. I know I'm not the only person who's been saying for years that the root cause and enabler of terrorism is poverty and desperation. Is it a simple coincidence that as the worlds population continues to explode and the gap between the haves and have-nots has widened into a gapping chasm that terrorism has increased? When anyone is backed into a corner with few or no options available they get desperate. They lash out, often violently and sometimes irrationally. It's about as new a revelation as gravity. And as we insert our countries politics, economics and culture into these other countries with a crowbar the direct contact between the wealthy few and the countless poor increases. It creates the tensions that often explode violently. The sometimes polar opposite cultural frictions that have resulted can often create sparks that set entire countries ablaze. We have given little or no thought to the implications and consequences of these actions internationally so we should not be surprised when they do not go the way we assumed they would.

In the past, terrorism seemed to be applied as a more long-range weapon used to strike an opponent from hiding or from some a safe distance. In weapons terms it would be like a sniper rifle or even an ICBM. A plane would be hijacked and some political prisoners release would be demanded. But conditions in the middle east (and elsewhere) have changed significantly since then. And now we see terrorism being wielded like a switchblade in a street fight. With so many people living in war ravaged countries or in refugee camps, the life of the average person is filled with chaos, poverty and death. In such conditions, the finer points of definition that westerners have the luxury of debating in detail mean very little and you begin to see people acting in desperation. If we look back to Hitler's rise to power, you have to ask would he have been as successful had the people not been in such a desperate state? It's hard to say for certain but it does seem unlikely that his rantings would have born the fruit they did were the field not so fertile. The same argument can be made in regards to terrorism. It is foolish to suggest that a person would strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up simply for a number of virgins in the hereafter (as many people love to suggest). A family living in a village in health and in peace seems an unlikely source for such a person. But one that's in a refugee camp having lost their mother and 3 of their siblings certainly seems a more likely source.

Our countries insulting GWOT is exactly like every other policy that has been initiated under the Bush presidency. It does the exact opposite of what it's name implies. We are creating more of the conditions needed for terrorism (by any definition) to flourish. If we truly want to counter the rise in terrorism then we'd declare war on it's causes, not it's victims. And make no mistake, terrorism's victims are not only those at the receiving end of a suicide bomber. We would fight a world-wide battle against poverty and corruption. We'd fight against exploitation and ignorance. We'd give people all over this planet hope. Because it is hope that will save us from ourselves. But if you take one look at Washington DC you'll begin to understand why it is home to some of the biggest terrorists on the planet and that any true GWOT that we might want to engage in needs to start here at home.

Howard, I always enjoy your history and tech lessons, but I'm not clear about how you're disagreeing with me -- if that's what you're doing.

I can't believe you're serious.

Nathan, who has his own fish to fry, links to an article in which not one person quoted claims that anyone joined or acted on behalf of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or al Qaeda because they were impoverished and uses that absence thereof to argue that al Qaeda's recruits come from poverty stricken Muslims.

And you're puzzled that commenters should be confused? 

Insurgents who drive bombs into large civilian crowds, however, do qualify as terrorists.

the reason why I wouldn't call "insurgents" "terrorists" is because, as Don Rumsfeld noted, it's an asymetric war; i.e. while we use exspensive and modern war machines, those without such technology are forced to use roadside bombs, uni-bombers and truck explosives.

I would simply say that it takes two sides to fight and, unfortunately, the US media deceptively suggests that the US "isn't one of those sides."

I hardly think that "the crimes of the terrorists" come close to those of the US war machine which, as you may remember, nearly leveled fallujah and, in the process, used white phosphor bombs that burned off the skin of innocent Iraqi civilians.

in general, your rational seems insincere since if the US media reported on the bombs which the US government dropped each day on Iraq, and the subsequent destruction, the "terrorists," as you call them, might not look bad. perhaps that's why the US targeted journalists and TV stations like Al Jazerra.

from what I see, terrorists, by definition, have to take responsiblity for their actions and face the consequences, while the "non terrorists," on the other hand, hide their actions and take responsibility for nothing.

To boldly go...

I don't quite see how not focusing on the occupation undercuts the point that economics are not one of the biggest elements here.

Would there still be a resistance in Iraq if everyone was driving a Mercedes-Benz and living the good life under American occupation? Sure... but there would be a whole lot less of them and it might be enough to keep a lid on it.

As it is of course, we have no real hope other than playing unsustainable Whack-A-Mole surge strategies and praying.

Interesting discussion. I'll go with noblesseobliqe.

The "war on terror" is bogus--even Rumsfeld didn't like it. What we're seeing in Iraq is resistance to foreign military occupation, as well as an Iraqi power struggle. Let's not over-complicate or over-analyze a situation that can be simply described as normal human behavior under the conditions imposed on them. Calling it "terrorism" is flat wrong, and ascribing life or death struggles to economic conditions is foolish.

I suspect that Captain Fleming would get less argument if he had said that economic desperation is a key factor driving US army recruitment, and that neocons have been very successful at spreading their ideology to economically strapped Americans. Of course he wouldn't be 'on message' if he said that.

Because economics has virtually nothing to do with it. It's a distraction favored by the Lieberman-Friedman axis of propagandists that want you to believe that if only Bush's crew had been more competent we'd be doing just fine.

It's wrong. Or at least unproven (where's the control experiment?)

It's pernicious, because that will give license to the next administration to invade another country the minute it thinks of itself as more competent.

It's noxious because it's treating Iraqis like children. Give them a lollipop and they'll be just fine. To go back to my analogy if the Chinese occupied the US, would the rebellion be lessened by the abundance of Wal-Mart jobs? Of course not, because we're Americans and we'll fight for our country to the death.
Well, Iraqis are just the same.

So, it's wrong, pernicious, and noxious. But hell let's go and discuss it anyway.

That really happened? One of my friend's Dads told that story to me once. He hardly ever talked about the war. My friend was shocked to hear it. It seemed so improbable I wondered for years if he'd put us on for one reason or another.

Of course it makes sense.

Too bad you've had to apologize for thinking so for the past 3 or 4 years.

A long time friend of mine, now deceased, spent most of his life as a butcher. For the most part he worked in the meat dept of large food chains. We were chatting once and he told me of the time his market got a new manager, a real go getter. He wasn't there much more than a week when the disciplinery letters started coming out. This managers purpose in life seemd to be to make life miserable for those who worked under him.

Eventually, this manager was able to fire two employees while others lost work due to disciplinery time off. Rumor was, this manager said, referring to one fired employee; "I got that bastard."

I'll never forget what my friend said next, and how he said it. (I should mention here that he had 4 young kids at the time)

he said (paraphrase), 'if he fucks with my livlihood he fucks with my family, and if he fucks with my family I'll kill him.'
If you knew this friend as I did, you wouldn't easily discount what he said.

Can we possibly be seeing some of this in Iraq or in other places around the world?

When I have time, I shall go correct the errors in Wikipedia. You have my most fervent apologies for not going first to Wikipedia, but relying on my direct laboratory experience with white phosphorus, including assisting in removing it from the victim of a small explosion.

I haven't personally had WP in me, but I've been a few inches away as it was being removed. I've also had first-hand experience using in chemical synthesis. Alas, the emergency physician and I hadn't had the benefits of the BBC and Wikipedia, having had to fall back on training in chemistry, standard trauma and toxicology texts such as Mattox and Goldfrank, and the Army safety manuals. We did the silliest thing...we kept the injury site covered with water, which kept oxygen from getting to elemental phosphorus. Under water, it sits there as a yellowish-white waxy substance. As each fragment was pulled out by forceps, it smoked until it went back into water.

Again, I have the disadvantage of actually checking primary sources, rather than the BBC. If WP is a chemical weapon by international convention, it should be listed in the the schedules of chemicals covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Guess what? It's not there. Various phosphorus containing compounds are in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3, primarily because they can be precursors to making certain nerve agents.

For example, the historical differences between Harris' dehousing and factory attacks, and that I consider Harris a war criminal?

basically, I was focusing on your definition of a terrorist and it all seemed rather silly since the US seems as cruel as "the terrorists."

Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I dream that some day, not too far away, we will rid ourselves of the crazy frame that the Republicans have dreamed up, called "terrorism". It would make discussing current events so much easier, and more accurate. It used to be when someone used the word "war" you knew exactly what was being referred to. Today, that isn't the case. It even used to be that people were called mass murderers and others understood what was being said. But, when we start using the word "war" as inappropriately as it is used today, and the word "terrorism" where there is no meaning assigned to the word, no intelligent conversation can result. It is like me arguing with you, speaking in Aramaic, while you answer back in Latin.

Hoppy in Sacramento

OTOH, "terrorism" was a fairly well defined term prior to the White House Gang. While modern use does go back into the 19th century, as with anarchists, Lenin "popularized" it.

Going back earlier, the Romans, for example, certainly made an example of their insurgents, with executions intended to make an impact on civilian spectators. The English, of course, had hanging, drawing and quartering. These reasonably qualified, I think, as examples of state terror.

If one applies Aquinas' principle of double effect, the definition depends more on the purpose than on the actor, be the actor state or non-state. The purpose, I believe, has to include instilling a sense of extreme fear. During the Inquisition, there was a ceremonial presentation of the instruments of torture to an accused, which might be enough for the accused to confess to anything he believed the Inquisitors wanted him to confess.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

A new entry--"insurgent": a person who rebels against authority or an established government.

What we see in Iraq is (1) resistance to foreign occupation and (2) a struggle between Iraqi factions. Neither of these is an insurgency, especially since there is no Iraqi government of any consequence. Americans control all the levers of official, as opposed to actual, power in Iraq.

American counter-insurgency doctrine is really counter-counter-imperialism doctrine. Whew, this gets complicated.

So, neither terrorists nor insurgents these folks be, just normal people doing what you or I would do if our homeland was occupied by a foreign force and there was a general breakdown in civil authority or central domestic authority. That is, doing their best to kill the occupiers as well as their rivals for power. Yes, some of them have been bought, but hey, they're not exactly lonesome in that department.

Um, drive a car bomb into a crowded market and kill a few hundred Iraqi women and children?

I guess you just lost credibility with me howard.

Edits done, and citing actual treaty language rather than new reports.

and you'd probably enjoy water boarding people because they don't actually die.

the US didn't sign the anti-landmind treaty either, so you'd probably think that's ok to.

To boldly go...