Reviewing Norman Podhoretz's most recent defense of George W. Bush's "forward strategy of freedom," National Review editor Rich Lowry cites a "pet peeve" of his, asking "Why do conservatives have such a problem with the term 'insurgency'? It's not necessarily a positive term. There are good insurgencies and evil insurgencies."
He needs to look the word up — its denotation and connotation are neutral, almost benign. Merriam-Webster notes that the word carries the implication of "a rebel not recognized as a belligerent," whereas identification in this instance is trenchant. What Iraq faces is a) a violent farrago that is b) almost totally composed of criminals and psychopaths, unlike traditional armies and militias, and which c) often behaves as if it is as interested in slaughter as it is in political gain. To be precise, Iraq faces terrorists.
A pet peeve of rightists who are averse to the use of "insurgency"? Those not having examined a word eagerly deployed by the left — often used interchangeably with "rebels" — for three years. That aside, if "terrorist" doesn't suit, whatever is wrong with "the enemy"?