What's in a Name
Insurgents. Terrorists. Occupiers. Mujahadeen. Freedom Fighters. The Resistance. Liberators. Guerillas. Who is which? Are some of them good? Some bad? Are they similar at all?
The label used depends upon the point of view, and the words used by the media to describe fighting between “us” and “them” depend greatly upon who’s doing the fighting. Thom Engelhardt has written an excellent article comparing the media coverage of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, fighting between Russia and Chechnya, and the current fighting in Iraq.
An Iraqi who hates the American occupation and supports or sympathizes with those fighting to end it might call them “freedom fighters” or “the resistance.” An Iraqi who is tired of the ongoing violence and sees the kidnappings and executions as a perversion of Islam might describe the perpetrators as “terrorists.” The American government and news media have settled upon the relatively neutral term “insurgents.” I think using the terms “mujahadeen,” literally meaning struggler, or “guerilla,” meaning little war, also have merit. Within the military, these fighters are officially known as “AIF” (Anti-Iraqi Forces).
Think back to the 1980’s and Afghanistan, when the U.S. financed and equipped Muslim militants (there’s another term!) in their effort to overcome the Soviet occupation. They were popularly known as mujahadeen, and President Reagan called them “freedom fighters,” although their tactics would be described today as “terrorist.” Of course one of their leaders, Osama bin Laden, would eventually become the poster boy for Muslim “terrorism.”
Remember the Chechen “rebels?” How do you suppose the Russian government labeled them? Terrorists, of course, and worse. From the Chechen (and Western) perspective, the fighting was about overcoming an occupation.
The treatment of the more powerful occupying forces in these three circumstances has also been quite different. Our government and media had nothing but criticism (rightfully so) for the Soviets in their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and we supported the Mujahadeen with arms, money, and training.
The treatment of Russia’s actions in Chechnya is a little more complicated, as it has changed over time. Prior to the “global war on terror,” (GWOT) the government and media condemned the extreme tactics (such as leveling the town of Grozny in 2000) of the Russian military. Now that Russia is a partner in our so-called GWOT, however, many previously questionable actions and tactics are somehow now justified as part of this international “war.” The conflict hasn’t changed, but the terminology certainly has.
The U.S. government “spin” and corporate media coverage of our current occupation of Iraq has been generally positive. I think the administration would like to view its actions as “liberation” rather than “occupation,” and in one sense that is true; we did “liberate” the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, we have not done much to liberate them from hunger, disease, crime, torture, destruction of their homes and property, and soldiers kicking in their doors in the wee hours of the night to take their men away.
The label used depends upon the point of view, and the words used by the media to describe fighting between “us” and “them” depend greatly upon who’s doing the fighting. Thom Engelhardt has written an excellent article comparing the media coverage of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, fighting between Russia and Chechnya, and the current fighting in Iraq.
An Iraqi who hates the American occupation and supports or sympathizes with those fighting to end it might call them “freedom fighters” or “the resistance.” An Iraqi who is tired of the ongoing violence and sees the kidnappings and executions as a perversion of Islam might describe the perpetrators as “terrorists.” The American government and news media have settled upon the relatively neutral term “insurgents.” I think using the terms “mujahadeen,” literally meaning struggler, or “guerilla,” meaning little war, also have merit. Within the military, these fighters are officially known as “AIF” (Anti-Iraqi Forces).
Think back to the 1980’s and Afghanistan, when the U.S. financed and equipped Muslim militants (there’s another term!) in their effort to overcome the Soviet occupation. They were popularly known as mujahadeen, and President Reagan called them “freedom fighters,” although their tactics would be described today as “terrorist.” Of course one of their leaders, Osama bin Laden, would eventually become the poster boy for Muslim “terrorism.”
Remember the Chechen “rebels?” How do you suppose the Russian government labeled them? Terrorists, of course, and worse. From the Chechen (and Western) perspective, the fighting was about overcoming an occupation.
The treatment of the more powerful occupying forces in these three circumstances has also been quite different. Our government and media had nothing but criticism (rightfully so) for the Soviets in their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and we supported the Mujahadeen with arms, money, and training.
The treatment of Russia’s actions in Chechnya is a little more complicated, as it has changed over time. Prior to the “global war on terror,” (GWOT) the government and media condemned the extreme tactics (such as leveling the town of Grozny in 2000) of the Russian military. Now that Russia is a partner in our so-called GWOT, however, many previously questionable actions and tactics are somehow now justified as part of this international “war.” The conflict hasn’t changed, but the terminology certainly has.
The U.S. government “spin” and corporate media coverage of our current occupation of Iraq has been generally positive. I think the administration would like to view its actions as “liberation” rather than “occupation,” and in one sense that is true; we did “liberate” the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, we have not done much to liberate them from hunger, disease, crime, torture, destruction of their homes and property, and soldiers kicking in their doors in the wee hours of the night to take their men away.
posted by Greg at 12/03/2004 10:43:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home