So reads a headline in the New York Times (minus my snarky finger quotes), in which perplexed analysts try to 'figure out' the insurgency. That these people have jobs is amazing; I'd expect better analysis from a first-year polysci class. Check out these bon-mots:

They have put forward no single charismatic leader, developed no alternative government or political wing, displayed no intention of amassing territory to govern now.

They have a political wing called the Iraqi National Foundation Congress. If making most roads out of Baghdad unnavigable for the occupiers isn't amassing territory, what is?

Rather than employing the classic rebel tactic of provoking the foreign forces to use clumsy and excessive force and kill civilians, they are cutting out the middleman and killing civilians indiscriminately themselves, in addition to more predictable targets like officials of the new government....

This surge in the killing of civilians reflects how mysterious the long-term strategy remains...

The U.S. military was "provoked" into using "clumsy and excessive" force in Fallujah. Most Resistance targets remain the Occupation. Most 'soft targets' remain police & military recruits which, rightly or wrongly, are viewed as part of the occupation. As for indiscriminate civilian killing, no one mentions the 100,000 people the U.S. occupation has killed, most recently in Fallujah & Al-Qaim (where the U.S. military doesn't allow independent journalists.) Is anyone calling the U.S. military "mysterious"?

[According to] Anthony James Joes, a professor of political science at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia and the author of several books on the history of guerrilla warfare. The attacks now look like "wanton violence," he continued. "And there's a name for these guys: Losers."

Reasoned political analysis from an academic, there. 'Wanton violence' is what they do. 'Pacification' is what we do.

"The insurgents are doing everything wrong now," he said. "Or, anyway, I don't understand why they're doing what they're doing."

Um, if you can't spend 10 minutes on google to find interviews with insurgents, on such mind-bogglingly obscure websites like Z Magazine, then you're the loser. (Or, as I imagine him, "Loooseeeer!", shouted by Ashton Kutcher lookalike with blonde curly hair, Raybans and baseball cap.)

The article goes on about how 'perplexing' and 'nihilistic' the insurgency is - again, nihilism applies to their 'excesses', not ours - until the author grudgingly admits they might have a genuine grievance:

In Iraq, insurgent groups appear to share a common immediate goal of ridding Iraq of an American presence, a goal that may find sympathy among Iraqis angry about poor electricity and water service and high unemployment.

And indiscriminate killing by U.S. soldiers & Islamists created by the U.S., by the theft of their oil, plans for longterm occupation...

I don't support targetting civilians. But I do support the staggeringly radical idea of asking the insurgents themselves what they're doing.

Worms of book

On a lighter note, an article from Afghani Maoists has a great line about how uncool being a communist is (Communist movement still alive in Afghanistan):

The theoretical backwardness of the left of Afghanistan was clear from the beginning... those who understood the importance of theory and spent some of their time for studies, insulted as “worms of book”.

I feel your pain, comrades. Deep inside, all they want is to drink some tea, talk revolution and get it on with the hotties carrying little red books. Here's a picture of some Afghani Maoists:



They are more hardcore than I. But I bet I go to more parties.