The "insurgents", as the liberal TV and newspaper media like to call them, are Islamo Facists supplied and funded by Iran. Listen to intelligent talk radio on AM, sometimes FM, Satellite, and internet.
While I enjoy a good "intelligent" (i.e., conservative) talk show, I think you are probaby better off thinking for yourself than buying into either medium wholesale.
Specifically, I don't think your characterization of Iraqi insurgents is entirely fair. From what I can gather (I have NOT been there), some insurgents see themselves as "legitimate resistance" forces. They apparently believe that they are serving the best interests of their people (being their religious/ ethnic/ local community, vs. their country), and they feel that the current Iraqi government does not adequately represent their interests. That this concern may be valid is reflected in the current efforts of a number of nations, including the United States and Saudi Arabia, to ensure that the current Iraqi government works to treat all Iraqis fairly and equally. It is also supported by the government's tolerance toward and protection of militia groups that attacked their people (up until this year).
Although the actions of this group are often quasi-terrorist in nature, actions of resistance groups are usually seen by locals as a patriotic effort to repell an occupying power. After WWII, the French resistance were not tried wholesale as criminals, despite their sometimes questionable tactics. Unfortunately, and to their detriment, these "legitimate resistance" groups allied themselves with outside parties, including terrorists, religious zealots, and neighboring governments. This is also not unprescedented in world history... The Afghan resistance we supported cooperated with some of the same people in trying to evict their Soviet occupiers. Heck, the US sought French support during the American revolution.
The "outsiders," who probably do include some Iraqi citizens, form a second group of "insurgents." These folks are ideologically motivated, being more interested in causing the West harm than in doing good by the Iraqi people. History tends to view such groups based on the popularity of their ideals: the folks who went to Spain to fight Franco or who went to China to fight the Japanese in in the 1930s are often seen as heros. Of course, THOSE groups actually wore uniforms and took their licks like men... but that isn't as important in some cultures. In Iraq, many of the outsiders are foreigners, and many of them terrorists, but some are Iraqi citizens who have joined foreign organizations.
There is, of course, a third group in Iraq, often simply called "militias." These are the groups that, until recently, enjoyed political protection from the government, and therefore had carte blanche to engage in retaliation attacks and ethnic cleansing against their former oppressors. For historical and religious reasons, these groups have strong ties to foreign governments. However, I don't think we should make the mistake of assuming they are all puppets of those powers. Remember that Iraqi shiites and Iranian Sunnis fought hard for their own governments, and against their religious bretheren, during the Iran-Iraq War. For that matter, the Kurdish resistance in Iraq was long supported by Iran, yet Iraq's kurds are not puppets of Tehran. Again, one often takes whatever help one can get. You could call these militias "patriotic," in that they purport to defend their people. They can't really claim to be a valid resistance, however, because they aren't reisisting anything. They are effectively paramilitary thugs.
If you look at the reports coming out of Iraq, the "insurgents" seems to be splitting on the distinction between those groups who see themselves as a legitimate resistance and those who are fighting to make a statement/ hurt the West/ punish their neighbors. The "legitimate resistance" folks appear to recognize that the needs of their people may yet be served by the central government, given the changes that are taking place. Further, they are learning the hard way that extremists will not tolerate moderation... see the attacks on tribal leaders and fighting among "insurgent" groups. Overall, attacks by these folks on government and Coalition forces seem to be falling off, and we hear of peace ovetures. I imagine that many of the "legitimate resistance" folks are now beginning to regret their involvement with outsiders just as many in the government are regretting their ties to the militias.
Are the militias committing treason? They technically were not until this year, because they acted with tacit consent of their government. They were still doing wrong, but wrong and treason are not exactly equal.
Are the "outsiders" committing treason? Only those who are Iraqi citizens. If their motivation for participating in the insurgency was other than to protect their people, then their aggression has no moral legitimacy, and they are traitors; they cooperated with organizations outside of the Iraqi government to achieve aims other than those of their government, and which were not in the best interest of their people. The non-Iraqis in this group cannot be guilty of treason, because it isn't their government.
Are the "legitimate resistance" folks committing treason? Technically they might be, but since they are participants in an organized rebellion of a sort, the point is essentially moot. No one seems to be bothered that the founding fathers of the US were technically traitors to the crown. If I were an Iraqi, I'd be willing to forgive those who only engaged in actions against unfettered, uniformed personnel, or committed nonlethal sabotage. Heck, even as an American, I'm willing to forgive an Iraqi who stood up with a gun and fought our troops like a man. I wish they hadn't, for everyone's sake, but that is war.
On the other hand, any individuals who have participated in killing civilians, terrorist acts, or other atrocities are criminals. At that point, the question of being a traitor is really secondary.
Anyway, I would hesitate to declare all Iraqi insurgents (and that is the actual military term, not a media fabrication) as puppets of Iran. Until recently, no one even suspected that Iran had anything to do with Sunni insurgent groups, and we don't know that that is even prevalent (it appeared to surprise the Coalition commanders). As for "Islamo-Facists," regardless of how hateful and pointless that term may be (does that mean Hitler was a Christo-Facist?), I think it is safe to say that not all insurgents are necessarily motivated by religion or their preferred form of government. I would guess that economic concerns (specifically not wanting to become a poverty-stricken minority in an oil-rich country) motivate many of them. You'll notice that alleviating these concerns is a major focus of current Coalition/ Iraqi policy... it just doesn't get the press that the crackdown gets.
