Justified Insurgency?
Story by Stephanie R. Kong
Art by Thuy Ngo

Turn on the news each day and you hear of the US military's efforts to rid Iraq of insurgents.   The aim, I gather, is to contain the social disorder and to leave Iraq in a state of acceptable peace before pulling out American forces.

Without a doubt, the consequences of the Iraqi insurgency are horrendous: suicide bombings, kidnappings and violent executions shatter the hope of an already vulnerable country and affect the families of loved ones living and working in the region.   Because of these events, the word “insurgent” has taken on a decidedly negative tone—one implying bloodshed and mayhem.   Furthermore, there seems to be the sense that these insurgents are acting for no apparent purpose, as if they are evil just for the sake of being evil.

Yet, if you have ever marched in a protest, if you have ever taken a stance against an established order, if you have ever stood up for what you believe in, then you too are an insurgent.   “Insurgent” is defined as a person who rises in revolt against established authority, especially a government.  

In stating this, I do not mean to justify what Iraqi insurgents are doing.   Murder, rape, mass executions—these are beyond the scope of acceptable human behavior.   What is occurring in Iraq is an escalating and cyclical system of directed and organized violence and it is hard to imagine what will aid in the resolution of this endemic brutality.

Yet, if a foreign army were to come into the United States, depose our government, and forcibly re-establish a government of their liking, wouldn't most of us become insurgents too?   If our families became “collateral damage” in a war without purpose, wouldn't most of us become violent anarchists willing to risk life and limb to oust a foreign military?   When your home becomes a war zone, wouldn't you fight, do things that you never thought that you'd do, just to stay alive?

The problem, really, is that we expected the Iraqi people to embrace US political intervention with open arms.   Known for being unilateral, we only saw one “solution” to the “problem” in Iraq and as such we only anticipated one reaction from the Iraqi people: appreciation.

Now that our solution has proven disastrous, what's the next step?   We've come too far to turn around, we're too proud to consider other options, we're too mired in this war to simply pack up and leave.   Furthermore, there is a certain irony in the fact that the US is attempting to establish a democratic government in Iraq—democracy, after all, implies the freedom to voice one's opinions.   Yet we are blatantly ignoring the messages being sent to us by the insurgents: go away and leave us alone.   And as a result, the messages grow more desperate, more devastating.

This doesn't mean that what the insurgents are doing is right.   But it's too easy and narrow-minded to say that they are 100% wrong.   Can you blame the insurgents for their actions?   If you were in their position, do you think that you would act differently?   We invaded their country so who, really, is the bad guy here?   And isn't this insurgency a natural result of the instability that we brought upon the Iraqi people?