Stop calling it “war”
For 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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!
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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/
This thread certainly brings up some very good discussion points, thanks for bringing this important subject up!