Stop calling it “war”
April 13th, 2007 by grumpypilgrimFor a long time now, I’ve been deeply frustrated and annoyed by the ongoing use of the term “war” to describe the situation in Iraq. Pardon me, but the “war” in Iraq ended several years ago, when all of their troops surrendered. What we have there now is a military occupation. You might think this is an unimportant matter of semantics, but it is not. It is a very useful matter of semantics if you happen to be a Bush-loving, neo-con Republican.
Why is a “war” better than a “military occupation?” “War” implies a threat, which makes garnering public support much, much easier. “War” demands money. “War” demands resources. “War” demands increased military production. “War” demands lives.
“War” is romantic, attracting both patriotic individuals who want to serve their country, and military and political leaders who want to cloak themselves in it. Bush supporters like to call him the “war president” — do you think any would call him the “military occupation president?”
“War” justifies autocratic leadership. “War” justifies sacrifices in personal liberties. “War” justifies espionage, both at home and abroad. “War” justifies sending large numbers of soldiers to be killed or maimed. “War” justifies killing people, even innocent people. “War” justifies prison camps. “War” sometimes even justifies torture. When does a military occupation justify any of this?
“War” creates images of valor and heroism. “War” creates the myth of an innocent nation fighting back to protect itself. “War” creates “the enemy.” And not just any ordinary enemy (e.g., a terrorist hiding in an Afganistan cave), but a worthy enemy: “global terrorism.” Who is the enemy in a military occupation? Insurgents. Locals. Nobodies.
In sum, “war” is what neo-con Republicans want every American to call the situation in Iraq, because this one word gives them more power than they could possibly get any other way.
It is time we stop calling it “the war in Iraq,” and time we start calling it what it is: the military occupation of Iraq. This is not just semantics. It is a matter of life and death.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Brilliant, brilliant point. I have to confess to having been guilty and ignorant of this important issue, but not any more! You’re absolutely right, from now on I will always refer to it not as “the war in Iraq”, but “the military occupation of Iraq”. I will also scowl at anyone who refers to it as a war, and then either beat them mercilessly or direct them to this article, depending on my mood at the time
April 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I agree entirely.
The frame of “war” invites all KINDS of awful entailments, including the relatively indiscriminate killing of innocents. And damage to soldiers and their families–see the comment to this recent post. I think George Lakoff has much to offer to this subject. See this post I titled “Coordinated violence and the frame of ‘war.’”
April 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The US occupied both Japan and Germany after WWII, there was no resistance and the military occupation was peaceful.
But if some of the people under occupation fight back then there is a war. An occupation can be peaceful. One does not fight in a peaceful occupation. When insurgents blow up vehicles of the US or Britain it is some kind of war, probably guerilla war.
There are wars between nations, like the war that took down Saddam Hussein. Then there are civil wars, like the Sunni-Shia battles going on in Iraq. At the same time, there is an insurgency (a kind of war) going on against the Iraqi government and its allies, the US and Britain, mainly.
Your distinction has great merit. There are several wars in Iraq. One is over and two more are currently being waged. These wars involve valor, courage, killing, espionage and so on. You’re right about that.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I completely agree, the war ended when the “Mission Accomplished” banner went up, and the original Iraqi army was disbanded.
Now we are in an occupation phase, performing “Nation Building” and acting as a “Police Force”, which are entirely different tasks with different objectives than war. The President has failed to outline these new objectives, or demonstrate we are achieving them in the (several) years since the war ended, and that is why we are losing faith in his leadership abilities. At the very least, be honest about what it is we are asking our troops to do.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
This most definitely is NOT a war. War can only be declared by an act of Congress.
Quoth the UMKC School of Law:
(http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm):
“The Constitution’s division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of “twilight zone” of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important–in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.”
April 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Who said it was ever a war? When was the declaration of war?
In previous ages your congress would have had something to say about emergency measures and the incredible loss of civil rights the american sheep have experienced would have had a natural expiry date - the end of the emergency/war. Now you’re stuck with everything your government has committed.
Have fun with that.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I couldn’t agree more!
I would even go a step further and call the initial “Iraq war” the “Iraq invasion” because that is exactly what it was. An unprovoked invasion.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Very astute! The “war” is over.
What we now have is a “belligerent occupation” which implies certain obligations under international law.
We have not met our obligations under international law insofar as they relate to “belligerent occupation.”
At a minimum, the “decider” is not a war president but, a “belligerent occupier” president. At the worst, Bush has violated international law. What a surprise!
April 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Meanwhile, the real war in Afghanistan is all but forgotten.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Thanks! You’ve stated succinctly something that’s been rattling around in my brain for awhile. Keep up the good work!
April 13th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
If it’s not a war, and a U.S. soldier gets captured, I guess that means he’s not a prisoner of war. So the Geneva convention won’t apply. Gee whiz hope those Iraqis treat their prisoners better than the U.S. treats theirs.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Amen.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Good point, but go back one step further.
We never declared war, so I don’t like when people call it a war. Vietnam was a “police action” I believe and is seen for the tragic joke that it was.
Iraq I and II were… I don’t know what, but saying “war” at all and not having congress declare it gives the administration all kinds of benefits (esp. on the PR front) without the responsibilities.
The sad irony is many of the same people who lost the Vietnam not-war for us (but kept telling everyone that victory was just around the corner) brought us the Iraq not-wars with the same conquences - power and money benefits for them and their friends and tragic loss and pain for everyone else.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Very good point. Words mean things and in this environment we must be more careful than ever when using language.
Dboy
April 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Agreed. This is not a war and people should stop referring to it as such.
I hope congress puts their foot down and does not provide additional funding.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I’ve seriously considered making that a bumper sticker.
Just to pile on, another really pernicious ‘detail’ that is going unchallenged is that internal government security reporting is beginning to refer to the territory of the United States as “The Homeland”. That just creeps me out, and strikes me as both unprofessional and dangerous.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Homeland reminds me of the Nazi Fatherland.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Homeland?? Ew. Very creepy. I will remember the point about war, grumpy - excellent point of syntax.
We invaded, we occupy. Tragic.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Let’s be clear about something else. “War” is actually an international legal condition, similar to a contract. Wars can be and usually are ended by two legal entities signing a binding document. It’s like a corporate negotation, but for some reason swords are usually involved when documents are signed at the end of a war. War World II ended with an agreement being signed on a battleship. The Civil War ended with documents being signed at Appomattox Court House. Much like marriage, war involves pain, madness and destruction and ends with a bitter signing of documents.
Tell me who has to sign what to end this “war”. Are “the insurgents” going to meet at a courthouse in Iraq and agree to stop fighting? The point was made that “war” was never officially declared, but it hasn’t been since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, first Desert Storm were all “police actions” (not sure about Desert Storm actually). But even in the police actions, there was someone on the other side who could say “Ok, you got us, let’s sign some papers and get this thing over with”. Since that condition doesn’t exist in this war on terror, it doesn’t seem that an end is in sight.
Another point that’s been absolutely killing me for years…is it just me or did the United States invade a sovereign nation with no provacation? Last time we invaded Iraq, they clearly violated international law by invading another country. We helped the South Vietnamese and Koreans in civil wars (north invading the south both times). But what the heck was this? We just rolled in (literally), deposed their leader and took the country over. Really? No one had a problem with that? In my book, that makes us the bad guys. The invaders. No matter why we did it. We didn’t “free” the iraqi people from a dictator…no faction in iraq officially called for aid from the US. Let’s stop with the “the world is better without Saddam Hussein” in power crap too. I can’t honestly say that the world IS better off, and even if it is it’s not our job to go bettering the world by destroying countries, period.
I hate this war because I grew up watching war movies. I served in the military since I was 18 (JRTOC before that) and I held very dear the idea that we were the GOOD guys. It was truly, truly heartbreaking to me to see us invade a sovreign nation. I’m not sure that we have ever done that in our nation’s history (though we might have in the Spanish American War and wars in the phillipines, I don’t know the details). But if you do call this a war, it is certainly a war in which we are the aggressors and no matter your feelings on terrorists or arabs as a people we are certainly in the wrong.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:13 am
It is NO LONGER a war. It is a fight for a PEACE. See (www.thomaspmbarnett.com). We have WON the war but now we are in (slight) danger of “loosing” the nation building. That is why every day that we hold out and keep the new elected Iraqi govt. in power, it another day the WE WIN. Don’t buy into the enemy’s propaganda so much. Believe in the truths that America holds dear (liberty, justice, freedom, etc…) The nihilist destruction of the insurgents will surely shock us, but it will never change the nature of those inalienable truths that can enhance the lives of all people.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I can see the point and I get it and it is a good one. But the issue is even more complicated. Perhaps the connotation of war is more a matter of circumstance and opinion than most of the posters here are able to admit. And as for this being a military occupation; this war/engagement has never been an occupation. To occupy a country you need a tremendous amount of troops; two or three times what we took. This was a serious error in judgment by our moron president. Ironically you can’t really fight a war in without occupying it. Yes, there are some semantic issues here but let’s be clear about it there has never been an occupation of iraq. No matter how wrong and unjustified it would be, or what were doing now, the bombings and violence would be considerably less. A major downside of fighting a successful war, unlike the one we are involved in, is that you have to be brutal and that many many lives will be lost either by your opponents, by you, or by both.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Sorry Xofis, ‘Homeland’ isn’t that much like the nazi party’s ‘fatherland’ - The Nazis managed to produce more than five years of prosperity and economic growth in Germany before the war machine rolled. Does the rhetoric of a US ‘homeland’ rest on such firm footings? I think we all know the answer to that.
As to whether this is a ‘war’ - I mean, hell, you guys have an administration that even describes affirmative social action as ‘war’ - on drugs, on poverty, etc. What isn’t a war for the US these days?
April 14th, 2007 at 2:29 am
its all about euphomisim, it been in history for years, cushioning hard delt politics
April 14th, 2007 at 2:36 am
As a neo-con I’ve been saying this for a long time.
Our military & this President did a good job with the war in Iraq. (Like Afghanistan. And like the immediate months after 9/11.)
Where we shit ourselves was in the follow-up the Iraq war.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:19 am
war or occupation…the consequence for those being killed or harmed are all the same. Those who consider the difference between the two words and their meaning are apparently a minority, unfortunately those who send their fellow americans as cannonfudder couldn’t care less how you call it, as long as the machine keeps turning
screw them!
April 14th, 2007 at 4:26 am
I am not a lawyer, so I will phrase this as a question rather than as a statement. Did the Supreme Court not implicitly rule that the Congressional authorization to take military action in Iraq amounted to a declaration of war? I believe that this was necessary to establish the “time of war” context for the treatment of the “unlawful combatants”, and the associated Presidential powers. Constitutional rights and powers change during times of war.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Well, France had exactly the same situation in the fifties during the “Algerian War” : easy military victory (using torture was also helpful), then years of hell because it is impossible to enforce democracy against the will of a whole population. But officially it was not called a war but “operations de maintien de la paix” = “peace maintenance operations”, for opposite reasons than the ones you point ; ie, the government did not want to acknowledge there was a problem. It led to the collapse of the currency and the republic, and France had to pull out. I think that is why there was opposition and warnings from them about “the war in Iraq”..
April 14th, 2007 at 7:00 am
It was NEVER BEEN A WAR! It has always been and invasion and subsequent occupation.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:41 am
I don’t think Iraq is a war in the traditional sense. Certainly not the war the US government is portraying it as. But it is definately a war.
What is occurring now in Iraq is a rebellion and/or civil war. It’s still a war, but not the kind of war that motivates Americans to send troops to fight and die, but one that should make us wonder if the Iraqis really appreciate having their country occupied by a foreign military.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Actually, there was a similar insurgency in Germany after WWII that lasted 3 years. The SS “werewolves” tried to destabilize the occupation government in a similar fashion to the Iraqi insurgents. Just not as effectively, because WWII left the Germans pretty weary and the werewolves didn’t have state sponsored support like the so called Iraqi insurgents. Still, it took serious measures by the US allies to shut them down. The same is true of Iraq. It seems our attempts to manage the place were very bad. But the surge has made a huge dent in the problems there.
You’re right that the war ended several years ago. The latter conflict is what you get when a power vacuum exists and people start fighting over the scraps. Iraq is a tasty prize due to its oil reserves, so naturally, all these players in the region, from Iran to al Qaeda, want to rule it. They all think we will leave when it gets too hard.
Which is why lefties here are once again playing into the hands of our enemies. It’s a mistake to look at the Iraq mess with such simplistic eyes. It’s a complicated situation. But once we’re involved, we can’t easily walk away.
BTW: We’re still in Japan, Germany and Korea.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:45 am
The correct term isn’t war, it’s INVASION, and when a American Soldier it’s shoot, that isn’t a “terrorist act”, but an ACT OF RESISTENCE. It’s very clear, think about what you will do if some foreign country, bigger than you, invades killing 100.000’s of your people to get your natural resources.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:11 am
It’s funny that these pigs had the exact same thoughts…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wXOSLoLiVRQ
April 14th, 2007 at 11:26 am
From now on it’s, “operations de maintien de la paix” in Iraq.
Now with Freedom Fries.
While we’re at it, we also need a more accurate metaphor than the “war” on drugs. War on freedom anyone?
April 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Does anybody know of any links which connect to this popular post by Grumpy? I think they are called trackbacks or something. Like, how netscape printed Erich’s article about bart erhman… or maybe somebody just submitted it to netscape? Never really thought to much about it, but I was just wondering how so many new people/comments seemed to show up…was it the word “war” that was used numerous times in the article?
April 14th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I entirely disagree. YOu know why? Cause ‘war’ also means ‘raw’ backwards and hence ‘military occupation’ doesnt make any sense what so ever, which is ‘noitapucco yratilim’ backward. I think if you read any book by Richard Dawkins, we will get a better understanding on issues of war and athiesm. HE ROCKS!!
April 14th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Grumpy has made an observation that both strikes me as extremely insightful, and makes me feel a little sad that it never occured to anyone else here before. Now that he points out the semantic difference, it seems so obvious! But then again, the US has quite a history of waging “wars” that don’t actually qualify as war- war on drugs, poverty, etc- so perhaps we’ve all just forgotten the technical meaning.
Oh, and Ernie: your comment about formal declarations of war certainly has validity, but it seems though a congressional declaration of war has fallen completely out of fashion. If a war truly requires a congressional declaration, well, then we haven’t had a war since WWII.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Excellent point. I’ve taken the liberty of linking to this post on my own blog with a comment or two.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:16 am
There was *never* a ‘war’ in Iraq. As others have pointed out (thank you), it was an unprovoked invasion by the American and British governments. ‘War’ is not a term used lightly, which is why Vietnam was never a war… it was a military action, which, I might add, had more validity than the invasion of Iraq.
What we have going on now is a resistance to that invasion, which makes us in the West, I’m sorry to say, The Bad Guys.
If you want to compare… Hitler invaded everywhere. There was no other reason than his own greed and aggrandisement. The same applies to Bush. No one called the French Resistance terrorists, indeed, they were heroes, nor should the Iraqi resistance be termed as terrorists. In WWII the West helped to rebuild what they had destroyed. In this instance it’s the West destroying the country, and raping it financially as well. Will Iraq ever recover? Probably not, and it’s certain that the West will not, because they’ve practically invited terrorism to flourish, and are sending more and more people its way every day.
Do I approve? Certainly not. I don’t condone terrorism in any form, or committed by any person or country, so therefore I do not approve of my own country committing it.
Do I support our troops? Yes and no. Should they be there in the first place? No, they should not, but they are the ‘collateral damage’ of the political and economic interests of governments meant to protect them, and to that extent I feel for them and hope that they get home safely. They’re putting their lives at risk for a cause they don’t believe in, and nor should they.
But… what if they gave a war and nobody came? (famous question, always relevant)
I personally think it’s time for the troops to lay down their weapons and refuse to fight further. It’s the only way to stop the killing and the destruction, because the governments who could call a halt to the mess are sitting on their hands and making excuses. They can’t court marshal the whole lot of them, after all. This conflict is doing no one sane any good. It’s well past time they were home with their families.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:25 am
Last I checked it was never actually a war since Congress can declare war not the President, and congress didn’t declare war.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Many of you would be too young to remember Nam. Nam was a complete failure, so much so, that every standard of morality was broken and abused. It was pathetic, there was nobody in charge, it was every man for himself. Corruption was rife and in control. Americans were killing at will, nobody cared; rather, it was expected. On the other hand Americans were dying 100 a month, 100 hundred a week, 100 hundred a day. Lying about death totals was very common, it didn’t matter to the generals. All that mattered was keeping the war going. It was the business of war. Tens of thousands of us dodged the draft; we willfully chose the life of a felony criminal to avoid going to Vietnam. After 10 years and 56,000 dead soldiers, the U.S. retreated from Vietnam. It didn’t take us two weeks to completely evacuate.
The last few days were chaotic mayhem, of historic proportions, a sight that will stick with us for ever. We left hundreds of captives behind. It was the sickest situation America ever experienced.
We should honor Kerry for what he did to end that war. In all honesty, it took hundreds like Kerry to bring out the truth of that war. They are all heroes. Some of the greatest heroes this country has ever seen. The whole country rose up against that war. Just like they should be doing with Iraq.
Where was Bush during this time, he was going AWOL from the National Guard and regularly getting so drunk that he couldn’t stand up. Essentially he was being a coward. Come this November, Bush can kiss his ass good-bye. He is unfit to be our president.
Going AWOL from the National Guard is so lame and pathetic it’s hard to believe. The National Guard was the same thing as get out of going to Vietnam. How stupid could he be? He got off easy. A friend of mine shot his leg off accidently to get out of going to Nam. Shooting yourself in the knee was an option many of us considered.
And by the way Nam wasn’t a war, it was a police action. The word war was, as it is now, an inspiration to those who live to protect and serve. Duty, Honor, Country, are famous words spoken by General MacArthur in his farewell speech. I’ve used those words myself with a little twist:
Duty, Honor, Country
I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death.
They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory.
Always, for them: Duty, Honor, Country; always their blood and sweat and tears, as we sought the way and the light and the truth.
Bush has led us into this phony war, and now we must fight our way out. We owe our allegiance to our own country and our own Constitution.
This private war of Bush’s dishonors us and our troops. Therefore, it’s our right and our duty as citizens to fight to bring them home.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
This “war” has left my son feeling obligated to keep going back (for his third time) because of the troops he left behind that he could not save and the ones that he feels he has to go with now. I wonder if his Commander in Chief could relate to that feeling - I somehow doubt it.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I suppose you and the rest of the people who profess to be concerned about the killing in Iraq will absolve yourselves from responsibility for the genocide that will occur if the US leaves prematurely. Darfur will be nothing compared to the carnage, and I for one believe you will have played a part in the deaths when and if they come. Yes there were mistakes, yes the war has been difficult, and yes the Bush administration is culpable. That, however, does not mean we should leave the citizens of Iraq to terrorists and sectarian death squads. If the US leaves Iraq before security is sustainable your cries will have been no different than Hitler’s maniacal rants on exterminating Jews. While your intentions may be pure, but the victims will not be able to tell the difference. I for one hope Americans will stand up, finish the job, apologize for the mess, and learn. Otherwise history will record a travesty much worse than the invasion and occupation of Iraq about which we are currently debating, and we may yet find ourselves in a similar situation in the future. There is no easy answer from here on out. Either we create a stable and sustainable government, or become responsible for the deaths that will inevitably result.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Kristine, I have the highest respect, and sympathy, for people like your son. They are still willing to put their lives on the line for their friends and country, even though their “Commander”-in-Chief apparently skipped out on military service and now displays virtually no concern for the good American lives he is throwing into the Iraq scrapheap. Clearly, Bush is far more concerned about trying to salvage his own political legacy than about saving the lives of American soldiers.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
When an oppressive regime is suddenly removed, the suppressed natural animosities between ethnic segments of the populace are unfettered.
Witness the fall of the Soviet Union.
Witness the toppling of Saddam.
Any historian can give you many other examples.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:40 am
Rob,
The following are serious questions, and are not intended to be inflammatory. I have simply never heard answers to these questions from anybody:
1) “… genocide … will occur if the US leaves prematurely.” Exactly how will we know “when” is premature, and “when else” is not? What indicator will we have?
2) “… the US leaves Iraq before security is sustainable …” Exactly what efforts are being expended in Iraq to create a sustainable level of security? Does it consist solely of using our military to prevent them from destroying each other? Has there been any success whatsoever toward enabling the Iraqis to establish and sustain their own security?
3) “I for one hope Americans will stand up, finish the job …” Exactly what is the “job”, and how will we know when it’s finished?
4) “… we create a stable and sustainable government …” How are our troops going to accomplish this, when there don’t appear to be any commensurate political efforts taking place? I can see how military efforts can contribute to the stability of a government, but not to its sustainability. That’s a job for politicians, and I don’t see any credible American political efforts being applied in Iraq.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:57 am
Well, since I’m sure Rob is long gone I will respond in his stead…
1. If a genocide occurs in the forest, and Geraldo is not there to film it, did the genocide ever really occur? (think Darfur, Rwanda, Serbia, Haiti, South Africa)
2. “Security” is a very optimistic term. Based on the daily bloodshed, I think “survival” would be a more appropriate term.
3. The “job will be finished” when the Middle East region as a whole sees the United States as global friend and ally. Something which is not possible if we keep sticking our hoses in their oil.
4. Yes, good idea. Maybe we should have considered this BEFORE we destroyed the IRAQI infrastructure, roads, water, electricity, airfields, commerce, and social structure. Things which come before (or with) a stable and fair government.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:03 am
Dan’s comment reminds me of a similar one I heard a couple of years ago from a nationally syndicated columnist: perhaps Saddam didn’t create Iraq; perhaps Iraq created Saddam. Indeed, maybe there is a reason why Saddam’s dictatorship survived for two decaces: sometimes a military dictatorship is the only thing that prevents total chaos. Remove the dictatorship and the chaos takes over. Indeed, every country uses dictatorship in some form if chaos breaks out, they just don’t call it dictatorship: they call it “martial law.” Of course, there is a difference between dictatorship and martial law, but their methods can, at times, overlap.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Rob asks good questions, but ignores the fact that “terrorists and sectarian death squads” have been freely slaughtering innocent people by the hundreds virtually every day throughout the American-led occupation. Indeed, some of the worst such attacks have occurred *after* Bush’s “troop surge.” By all accounts, it already IS a genocide. Accordingly, I would challenge Rob to demonstrate that removing or redeploying American troops would create as big of a disaster as he asserts. Playing the Hitler card and the Darfur card makes for fiery rhetoric, but where are the facts to support these assertions, Rob? Maybe the mess in Iraq today is similar to the mess in America before its Civil War: maybe the two sides will not declare peace until after they they have killed enough of each other to see the futility of death and to negotiate a political solution. As sad as it sounds, maybe there is no other way. Indeed, the past four years suggests that maybe there isn’t (at least not under Bush’s incompetent leadership and failed strategies). Maybe America’s occupation is merely prolonging an inevitable genocide.
Another factor that Rob has failed to mention is that maybe the outcome he desires (indeed, that we all desire) simply cannot be achieved without a much larger American military presence in Iraq — one that Bush no longer has the political capital to create and that Americans no longer have the willingness to tolerate.
A final point of contention I have with Rob’s comment concerns his opening statement: “I suppose you and the rest of the people who profess to be concerned about the killing in Iraq will absolve yourselves from responsibility for the genocide that will occur if the US leaves prematurely.” Rob, as difficult as it is for you to accept this, freedom isn’t free. If the Iraqis really want to live in a free democracy, maybe they should do more to earn it themselves, instead of hoping Americans will do it for them. Maybe if they are confronted with the possibilty of genocide following an American troop withdrawal, perhaps more of them will come to the bargaining table and make efforts to avoid one. Rob played the Hitler card; I’ll play the Kennedy card: maybe the threat of mutually assured destruction will do for the Iraqis what it did for America and Russia during the Cold War: create an outcome so terrifying that neither side is willing to risk it.
Likewise, American fought its own Revolutionary War against Britain and didn’t ask others to fight it for us. It had help from France — a lot of help, in fact — but Americans were the ones who fought and died. Perhaps one of the reasons America’s democracy has survived for two centuries is because the revolution was OUR revolution, not one imposed on us by the French. Maybe Iraq will never have a sustainable peace until they take *full* ownership of the fight. If it is never “their” fight, then it will never be their victory.
Bottom line: I agree with Rob about the desire to avoid more bloodshed in Iraq, but the past four years demonstrate that “stay the course” is a failed strategy. It has neither produced peace nor prevented death squads. Maybe withdrawing or redeploying American troops will lead to genocide, maybe it won’t. All we know for certain is that for the past four years the existing American troop level has resulted in a half-scale genocide that, according to the death toll, is getting worse rather than better. Rob apparently believes that maintaining the current strategy will somehow produce a result that is the exact opposite of what it has produced for the past four years. Unfortunatley, the facts do not support that opinion.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I agree with you Grumpy, just change the name in your post to “Rob” instead of “Ben” please. (Remember, I am on the good guys’ team.)
I also noticed some neocons over at netscape bringing up the other genocides, saying that “this is what will happen in Iraq”. In that case, the neocons should be EQUALLY concerned about the genocides which are happening in Rwanda, Darfur, etc. Why is Iraq any different? Oil.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“Ben played the Hitler card”
That gave me a nice chuckle. (Not that I haven’t ever played the Hitler card…)
Now back to *ROB* and his opening statement…
“I suppose you and the rest of the people who profess to be concerned about the killing in Iraq will absolve yourselves from responsibility for the genocide that will occur if the US leaves prematurely.”
You must know by now that *BEN* would never write a sentence that long and accusing, without at least some italics or caps.
I (Ben!) assert that many folks have already absolved themselves of responsibility for carnage in Iraq because they DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION IN THE FIRST PLACE!
May 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Rob, the choice is not abandoning Iraq versus a status quo that is acceptable. The status quo is a nightmare.
You are assuming, as fact, that life for the Iraqis will be worse if the U.S. pulls out its military. That’s a huge asumption.
What is going on in Iraq right now is not acceptable, in terms of loss of life, destruction of families, loss of infrastructure, loss of homes (the U.S. has bombed out more than a few), the loss of the Iraqi middle class. What’s going on in Iraq must change. If there is any doubt, check out this timeline from Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
Here’s another thing to consider: Isn’t it possible that the the U.S. military presence in Iraq, combined with the U.S. permanent bases, plus the U.S. plans to control Iraqi oil are fueling much of the violence? We are occupiers and people hate occupiers. They hate any movement or ideas that they associate with the occupiers. The continued presence of the U.S., in my opinion, is going to make any Iraqi grassroots democracy movement suspect in the eyes of most Iraqis.
In my opinion, it’s time to do SOMETHING different. U.S. Iraq strategy reminds me of Einstein’s definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
May 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
My apologies, Ben, for using your name in place of Rob’s. I trust my correction meets with your approval.
Indeed, your last point about absolving responsibility is a good one. Had there been no (unjustified) invasion, there would be no responsibility to absolve.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Thanks for taking me off of the hotseat… unfortunately I don’t fall into the group which was enlightened enough to know that the war was a mistake from the get-go.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Re: Grump’s Kennedy card: I don’t think there would be much of a deterrence effect from a mutually assured destruction scenario. When intellectuals were running the superpowers, this policy seems to have worked.
Now, both sides are ruled by religious fundamentalists with significant factions dedicated to the idea of imminent Armageddon, and glee at the thought of their own inevitable blessed survival after the event. Where is the deterrent effect?
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:41 am
Dan asks: “Now, both sides are ruled by religious fundamentalists with significant factions dedicated to the idea of imminent Armageddon, and glee at the thought of their own inevitable blessed survival after the event. Where is the deterrent effect?”
I mentioned only the possibility: “…*maybe* the threat of mutually assured destruction will do for the Iraqis what it did for America and Russia during the Cold War…” (emphasis added). If the scenario Dan describes is correct — that there is glee on both sides at the thought of slaughtering each other — then is the peace process not accelerated by letting them do so? Why not pull out U.S. troops and let the crazies hack each other to bits, instead of inviting them both to hack U.S. troops to bits while waiting until they can have a better shot at each other? If they truly do want to slaugher each other, then the sooner they do so, the sooner the reconstruction can begin. The job of a U.S. soldier is to defend America, not to act as cannon fodder between two groups of religious fanatics, in a foreign country, bent on destroying each other. I might feel differently if a U.S. military presence was, in fact, preventing a genocide, but the clear evidence in this case is that it cannot.
May 5th, 2007 at 5:44 am
It grates on my nerves every time I hear it …
The Republicans are so good at finding inflammatory words to be used as labels for things with which they disagree. Lately they have been calling the withdrawal provisions in the Iraq Funding Bill “Surrender Language”.
Inflammatory. And inaccurate.
An occupier does not “surrender” from an occupation. An occupier can “end”, “cease”, or “terminate” an occupation. An occupier can “withdraw” or “exit” from an occupation. An occupier can “leave voluntarily” or can be “expelled”. An occupier can simply become weary of an occupation and “depart”. But an occupier has, by definition, already defeated the enemy, at least locally, and cannot “surrender” from an occupation.
And it’s about time that Democrats, Independents, rational Republicans, and everyone who wants to put an end to this occupation became very clear, concise, and adamant about this distinction.
May 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Further to Edgar’s comment, I’ve noticed Republicans are also calling the Democrats’ budget for Iraq, which sets target dates for troop withdrawal, “an abandonment of our troops.” They don’t call it what it is — a rebuke of Bush’s failed policies…an expression of the American voter’s discontent…a realistic plan that is long overdue, etc. — it’s “an abandonment of our troops.”
Sadly, the reason why Republicans do this is because it works for them: their supporters fall for this nonsense.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
“War” creates images of valor and heroism.
Really? Now, I begin to understand what’s wrong with the US: you have never been occupied or had foreign forces invade your country - all Americans who have experienced war were soldiers, not helpless civilians. That’s a good thing, of course, but it may explain the otherwise incomprehensible patriotism when it comes to war. But reading articles like this gives me hope that Americans will learn the lessons without having to do so the hard way eventually.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
“Trouble is it never really was a war because there was no opposing side.”
“A just solution won’t come without a cleansing and we are fortunate to have one handy. Impeachment will tell a story about how and why we started an aggression. It will contain sub-plots about indefinite detention and torture and the means of repression here at home, including the suppression of dissent.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/30/2850/
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
This thread certainly brings up some very good discussion points, thanks for bringing this important subject up!
November 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Thank you for enlightening me! I was not aware of this difference. I will be sure to share this article with others equally as concerned about the current military occupations the US is engaged in.