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.
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.
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"..
It was NEVER BEEN A WAR! It has always been and invasion and subsequent occupation.
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.
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.
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.
It's funny that these pigs had the exact same thoughts…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wXOSLoLiVRQ
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?
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?
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!!
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.
Excellent point. I've taken the liberty of linking to this post on my own blog with a comment or two.
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.
Last I checked it was never actually a war since Congress can declare war not the President, and congress didn't declare war.
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.
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!