Whatever happened to anti-occupation violence? You know, the "insurgents"?

Look at this: Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad cooperating in a street protest against U.S.-built barricades that would separate the two neighborhoods! Is this what they mean by “sectarian violence”?

Keep in mind that an insurgency against a foreign occupation (including those countrymen considered to be collaborators or puppets) has virtually disappeared from the explanations for Iraqi violence in the U.S. press: it seems it’s either “sectarian violence” or “al Qaeda.” Either one provides the administration with justification for our continuing military occupation. “Al Qaeda” as a reason to stay and fight needs no explanation, because only a small number of Americans will catch on to the fact that the so-called “al Qaeda in Iraq” (or “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia”) is very likely, one, very, very small in number, and two, is one group of Iraqi home-grown insurgents who want to drive the hated occupier out of the country, and has nothing to do and no motivation in common with bin Laden outside the borders of Iraq. What seems more likely, assuming there is such an organization and that it is an accurate translation of its name, is that it is a bunch of Sunni jihadist militants who chose the name because Bin Laden succeeded in sticking it to the same enemy.

But “sectarian violence” provides the second prong of justification, leading to the notion more persuasive to liberals and moderates that we have to stay – or at most, draw down slowly and "responsibly” -- to prevent the conflagration predicted if the U.S. military is not there to control it. Of course, the fact that an explanation supports what the administration wants to do does not, in and of itself, prove that it is wrong, but with this crowd, it should always – always – make one extremely skeptical.