The Mystery of the Insurgency

New York Times ^ | May 15, 2005 | JAMES BENNET

[woofie]

But I thought it was innocent people we are trying to kill

[dr_who_2]

Well, it's nice to know that the NYT has become less enomoured with the insurgency. Would be nice if could give the U.S. armed forces a kind word now and then, but in the end, maybe the French will come round, too.

[woofie]

I think The NY Times is trying to appeal more to the red states

[goldstategop]

The terrorists simply want to kill every one who they perceive as standing in their way to absolute power. They reject democracy, freedom, pluralism and limited constitutional government elected by the people. That much is clear. Why its a mystery to the New York Times is beyond stunning.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Cicero]

Translation: "Hey, if you guys can't manage to run a decent insurgency in Iraq, how on earth are we going to work up another Vietnam quagmire? Come on, let's have a little useful help, guys! We can't keep bashing Bush on Iraq all by ourselves. Now, these are the insurgency manuals you should be reading. . . ."

[woofie]

LOL

[oolatec]

the NYT has got one thing wrong. The terrorists aren't interested in what other people think. They just want to kill anyone who gets in their way. Period.

[MrNatural]

bump

[Dallas59]

Not one word in the article......"ISLAMIC"

[dr_who_2]

I wouldn't go that far. Nor would I call it a change in ideology. Unless some of their editors were replaced with aliens from outer space without our knowledge.

[fso301]

The NYT reporter, either an ageing hippie or child of a hippie is frustrated that the terrorists aren't helping out the MSM and other members of the domestic 5th column.

[Hostage]

Hey James Bennett of the NY Times! Get a clue.

There is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese were backed by the Soviet Union who effectively ran all diplommacy and propaganda to make Viet Cong look like freedom fighters trying to liberate their country from the evil American imperialists.

And your employer was complicit to pass on the Soviet version of events. And now? They don't dare because they know Americans are still mad as hell and will no longer buy their particular brand of bovine excrement.

[vbmoneyspender]

The swells at the NY Times are apparently shocked to discover that death cultists like nothing better than to go around killing lots of people whom they consider to be infidels.

[Nam Vet]

Have you ever noticed that articles never mention the fact that Saddam released 100,000+ murders, rapists, thugs and bandits at the opening of the war? I wonder how many of this so-called 'insurgency' is just thugs and murderers who do not want to return to prison or a death sentence.

Nam Vet

[denydenydeny]

The simple answer is, all that they can do anymore is kill civilians. Direct attacks on military targets lead only to annihilation.

[dr_who_2]

There is one thing that the article didn't touch on. The insurgents may have no hope of controlling Iraq. But they may want to break off a piece of it for themselves, although I suppose in the long run they are also running out of cards to play to that end too. International terrorists tend to flourish in hellholes of their own making. So maybe they aren't "insurgents" to begin with. Just terrorists.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

If the insurgency is trying to overthrow this regime, it is contending with a formidable obstacle that successful rebels of the 20th century generally did not face: A democratically elected government. One of the last century's most celebrated theorists and practitioners of revolution, Che Guevara, called that obstacle insurmountable.

I bet that there is not a MSM "reporter" today who does not have a picture of Che somewhere among his/her prized possessions.

Had Che lived longer he too would have received the same overwhelming MSM support against anyone that the MSM gave to their Ho in Hanoi over the democratically elected government of South Viet Nam.

Bottom line: how the hell can this generation of MSM pukes know who to get behind against the Americans if one of the groups doesn't stand up and say, here's what we are for. . . . What's a "reporter" to do?

[mrsmith]

"history itself fails to illuminate the conflict under way in Iraq."
Uh, yeah, it's very mysterious... to the NYTimes. They think the Baath Party was a political party. Iraqi gangsters act like gangsters, not "rebels".

Al Capone: "Once in the racket you're always in it. "

[JasonC]

Oh god, how mindless are these people? Study Algeria. The methods they are using are fascist methods. The Algerians learned them from the SS. Street violence is designed to polarize the populace and make everyone think the only safety lies in being part of a paramilitary organization, and then in winning a civil war. The overall premise is that men are cowards and will run away from anyone more ruthless than they are, that goon-ish-ness itself is the guareenteed route to success and power, that just being more brutal and vicious than the next guy will stun everyone into sheeplike docility and appeasement.

And against John Kerry, or the French, that would all be true. Against men rather than sheep, it is an anachronism. But demonic men cutting others to pieces in broad daylight ruled half of mankind for most of history. They just don't know any other way of even trying to rule anything, or build anything. They are stupid evil men. But there is no mystery in it whatever.