Active Entries
- 1: ebike under the rainbow
- 2: In which a dog attack gets me 40 dollars and maybe delayed trauma
- 3: Life by candle-light
- 4: some meal costs vs alternatives
- 5: stainless steel convert
- 6: One mask forward, two masks back
- 7: welp, SWG Discord
- 8: packing philosophy
- 9: overshoes followup
- 10: rain shoe covers
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
Style Credit
- Base style: Abstractia by
- Theme: White Lace by
no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 13:18 (UTC)From:I do use the term "bad guys" a lot, because the motives of most players in Iraq, at least in Al-anbar where I was, are difficult to define. Most of the adversaries we faced (by which I mean people who were dangerous to US forces or to their own communities) were either tribally motivated or were simply thugs who draped themselves in the green of Islam. The Iraqis themselves tended to refer to these people broadly as "bad guys" - the term they used was "irhaabi," which our interpreters applied whenever we said "insurgent" but which the Iraqis use to mean "trouble-maker" in general. I had an interesting conversation with some local leaders in the town of Gharmah north of Fallujah in which they asked me what I thought of George Washington, to which I replied that he was an irhaabi (there are, by the way, some interesting similarities between our insurgency against the British and the Iraqi insurgency against us). We often talked about bad guys being Wahabbis (or for the cognoscenti, Salafists), but it was hard to tell if the local "emir" who runs a Sharia court and execute wrongdoers (we rescued one old man a couple hours before he was scheduled to be beheaded) was a religious zealot or just a local gangster.
In short, very few of the insurgents in Iraq seem to fit the "Islamofascist" label. There was a hard-core Salafist cadre present who may have provided some doctrinal guidance, but for the most part the "bad guys" seemed to be hoodlums or loose bands with a tribal axe to grind.