As I watched the show last night I found that the term "Terrorist" appears to have lost all real meaning. The given definition that I assumed was universally understood was that a terrorist was any individual that committed politically motivated acts of violence against civilians. The acts of September 11th were terrorist acts since civillians were the targets. However, the individuals in Iraq who attack US Soldiers were also called terrorists. Though there are definitely those in Iraq that commit acts of terror, those that attack US soldiers are not, by definition, committing acts of terrorism, they are instead involved in a guerrila war. If we continue to define terrorism in this manner then there is no distinction between legitimate acts of resistance and true terrorism. Though none of us wants to see US soldiers die it is important that we be clear in how we define our terms. Other governments around the world are already using our terms to define political dissidents and other groups opposed to their governments. This sets a dangerous precedent that allows the unscrupulous to claim that their enemies are terrorists and therefore not allowed the basic rights of the Geneva convention. Our language and our actions define the baseline for the rest of the world, and it is important that we are clear, both in language and deed. It makes me wonder why we continue to use the term terrorist at all. Aren't these people murderers, plain and simple? Criminals of the worst order? Why do we give them any kind of legitimacy by calling them terrorists and making their politics an issue in their story? Timothy McVeigh was a murderer, not a terrorist, and so are these folks. I do not claim to have the answers to any of these problems, but being clear in how we define things will allow us to have a more robust dialogue about these issues.
You raise a really interesting point. You might be interested in this article from Wikipedia on the controversy about how to define the word "terrorist"--and how use of the word can have ulterior motives.
American troops and Iraqi troops are at "WAR". People will die. There is no act of Terrorism!!! When peoples homes and country are under attack, they will do anything to protect it. So are Iraqis Terrorists? NO! They are doing what any other country or person would do to protect their home,land and family. Is it a shame when civilians get in the cross fire? Of course! But again, they are at "WAR"!!
I think the situation in Iraq is a bit more multi-dimensional. U.S. forces and the new U.S.-created Iraqi government's army are fighting against non-uniformed Iraqi Sunni insurgents, ex-Baathists and some foreign fighters (i.e., Al Qaeda) in some places, such as Anbar province. In other places, they're also fighting Shiite insurgents. In addition, the U.S. forces increasingly are caught in the middle of what has turned into a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis, in which Shiite death squads and Sunni suicide bombers are killing a lot of innocent civilians, and individual neighborhoods are taking up arms to protect themselves.
That said, it's hard not to fault the U.S.--or rather, the Bush Administration--for creating this mess by invading Iraq in the first place. Opinion polls show that most ordinary Americans now believe that the war was a mistake, and that they believe they were misled by their own government about the reasons for going to war. (The results of the recent election, in which the Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate, certainly reflect that.) At this point, I think the big difficult question for the U.S. is how to get out of Iraq without creating a power vaccuum in which the violence might escalate even more.
