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.
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 🙂
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.'"
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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!
Meanwhile, the real war in Afghanistan is all but forgotten.
Thanks! You've stated succinctly something that's been rattling around in my brain for awhile. Keep up the good work!
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.
Amen.
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.
Very good point. Words mean things and in this environment we must be more careful than ever when using language.
Dboy
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.
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.
Homeland reminds me of the Nazi Fatherland.
Homeland?? Ew. Very creepy. I will remember the point about war, grumpy – excellent point of syntax.
We invaded, we occupy. Tragic.
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.
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.
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.
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?
its all about euphomisim, it been in history for years, cushioning hard delt politics
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.
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!