We need to stop calling it the Iraq War. The war ended 4 years ago. It is the Iraq Occupation now.

[Hamlette]

Brooks uses the word war, as almost everyone does, and I think it's a big mistake. It's an occupation, and has none of the defining qualities of a war, especially lacking an enemy who can be defeated and accept our will, or who can defeat us and form the agreements that comprise an armistice or treaty. The word also enables the ridiculous Bushian prattle about victory and success. Occupation is the right word; the Iraq war is long over and we won, trivially. The 'war against terrorism' and against the Protean entity called Al Qaeda also isn't a war, and calling it one is as toxic to clear thinking as calling drug policy a war.
http://www.samefacts.com/

(He's reviewing Brooks' column on the Iraq war. It's a great read, all of it, but if we are serious about framing or just telling the truth we need to all stop calling it a war.

[youngdem]

1. A few thousand dead American soldiers, their families and millions of Iraqis would probably disagree

[pitohui]

2. occupation is certainly a form of war

i don't think hair splitting semantics is the best use of our time right now

there are guns, bombs, cities being destroyed, people being killed and maimed, there is no reasonable way to claim this is not a war

[Hamlette]

3. war can be honorable, occupation is never justified n/t

[ljm2002]

7. It is not hairsplitting...

...and it doesn't take much time to figure out.

"War" implies action, potential glory, and a goal.

"Occupation" does not have the same active and positive connotations.

And, "occupation" is the more accurate term. There are no battlefronts, the enemy is everywhere. Our goal is peacekeeping (which as you point out, we are failing at utterly) and rebuilding (ditto). Even our initial incursion is better described as an "invasion" rather than as a "war" IMO.

Even if people do not define the terms to themselves, the connotations are there. Language matters. We keep getting our butts kicked in the media, and yet we fail to recognize even the most rudimentary forms of argument framing.

Sorry this just pushed one of my buttons. I always get irritated when someone tells me to stop doing something useful. It's not like we can't spend time on more than one thing -- in fact if we're serious we'd better be pressing forward on multiple fronts.

(edited to add more on war vs. occupation terminology)

[pitohui]

18. but you're not doing something useful, you are belittling the truth

invasion is war

occupation is war

sorry, anywhere you have men in tanks and guns, and planes and bombs, flying into other people's country killing them, it's a war

i'm sorry that all wars are not grand and glorious but if you look at history the overwhelming majority of wars are pure and simple snatch and grab theft

this war the same as any other

a simple anglo-saxon word is always to be preferred to the multi-syllable euphemism

[ljm2002]

27. And I think you are the one who is splitting hairs...

...because what I am talking about is framing the argument.

If, as you say, that occupation is just war by another name, then I would say, let us use the name that is most likely to garner support for our position.

People will rally 'round a "war president". They will not rally 'round an "occupation president".

Okay sure that was a silly example. But the point stands. War has certain connotations. If we don't "support the troops" in the "war effort" we can be painted as unpatriotic. But if it is recognized as an "occupation", and worded as such, then our failure to support the mission is a lot less susceptible to such twists.

It's okay -- we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

:hi:

[Usrename]

30. Under occupation, Bush is resposible for the well-being of Iraqis.

He is just as responsible for the Iraqi citizens as Saddam Hussein was before the occupation.

Legally and morally, Bush is responsible for his subjects under his occupation. The Iraqi people are U.S. subjects.

Do you understand this concept? It goes back centuries through diffent law and international agreements, culminating in our own Geneva Conventions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Call it hairsplitting, but in my lexicon an 'occupation' is for the most

part peaceful. There is order imposed by the occupying force, and most violence is perpetrated on the occupied citizens by the occupier.

Occupation is Germany and Japan after WW2, when peace was declared and the military dictated the terms of the peace. Occupation is the West Bank, where the military controlled the movements of the locals, and there is a very low level of violence against the occupiers.

Iraq was an occupation for a few months, but it has now become a full fledged insurgent war. I think it can hardly be called an occupation when the occupying forces stay buttoned up in their bases, and risk attack every time they venture out.

[jobycom]

4. As a DUer I haven't seen around in years stated back in 03, it was never a war.

It was an invasion. Now it's turned into an occupation. A war implies the other side has a military to fight back with.

How bad a leader do you have to be to invade a nation without a military, and lose?

[pitohui]

20. how clueless would a person have to be to be unaware that an invasion is a war?

i guess hitler did not start that war in europe then when he invaded poland? i mean wtf?

[jobycom]

24. Yeah, I guess I'm pretty fucking stupid, huh? nt

[pitohui]

26. well certainly that poster you referenced who disappeared was pretty damn out of it or else a troll

i was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were being sarcastic

if you don't know what is going on in iraq is a war, then i just don't know, it seems disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of dead there over the last couple decades if you ask me

this ain't teevee, this is the real deal, this is what war looks like - it's UGLY

[jobycom]

29. No, I found her advice intelligent and wise, so I'm fucking stupid.

Don't give me the benefit of the doubt on that. I've always thought of a war as a struggle between two armed nations or forces with some rough equivalancy, and I've always had trouble calling it a war when one nation with an advanced military swooped down to indiscriminately slaughter innocent people in another land with no more to fight them off than shotguns in the back of pickup trucks. I was pretty fucking stupid for thinking that, and so was my friend.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Actually, what you describe is the ideal war.

Nobody wants to go to war with someone who is their equal. It's just plain bad strategy. When Hitler's panzer divisions moved into Poland they were going up against horse cavalry. Does that mean it wasn't a war?

There is nothing noble about war. There is nothing fair about war. The idea of war is to crush the enemy, and the more casualties you cause and the fewer you take, the more successful the war.

Please note, I am not calling anyone stupid - but I do think you have an idealized idea of war which you should be disabused of. There is no such thing as a 'just war', because in any war at least one side is absolutely dead wrong, and in many wars, both sides. The only good war is the war which is not fought.

We are there waging war against the people of Iraq. If there is any justice in that war it is in their fight against us. I understand the point you're going for, but I contend this IS a war, that military operations are on-going, both by our troops and by insurgent forces. That makes it a war, by any definition I know.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Yeah they called it war torn France, not occupied France, and for a reason...

[BuyingThyme]

5. It's a holocaust. It's genocide. It's Nancy's War.

Lots of things you can call it.

[Hamlette]

9. Nancy's war? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

11. She bought it. She owns it.

[Hamlette]

16. silly me...I forgot...Nancy is the enemy because she won't do what you want! n/t

[BuyingThyme]

17. Is that too complex? Is it the Democracy that bothers you?

[Hamlette]

38. not at all

but we don't live in a democracy (we live in a republic...remember how that works?) and the Congress doesn't vote by the polls (assuming that's what YOU mean).

She didn't have the votes. You gonna hold her responsible for the votes of a veto proof majority of congress critters and 60 senators?

If she were you might have an argument.

[BuyingThyme]

41. One problem: She did have the votes.

She had all the votes needed to stop funding the war unconditionally. Interesting how you frame it.

[Hamlette]

42. ah, we do have a difference of opinion

I do not think she should have left our troops in Iraq with no funding. Remembering Vietnam, it takes time and costs money to get troops out of a foreign country, especially if it is a war zone.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. She's only the mortgage broker.. bush bought it first then sold shares.

Nancy should have disrupted the finacing agreement instead of letting it go through.

[BuyingThyme]

33. Bush is moving out. Nancy is moving in.

[KG]

6. yes, and a rather brutal and repressive one at that.

[EVDebs]

8. I've posted similar topics before. This is so obvious ! George Lakoff needs to be mentioned here

GOP is controlling the language and media is only letting that 'war' word out.

[JacquesMolay]

10. I disagree ....

... Bush said we ended the war while wearing a ridiculous flight suit during some Disney version of a ritual. The war was just starting then.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Yes, let's call it an "occupation" instead of a war.

And lets call them "occupational engineers" instead of troops.

[phildo]

13. Occupation? It is turning into a Career!

US Military -- It is not just a job . . . it is a (mis)adventure.

[kath]

14. Lately, I always refer to it as the Iraq invasion and occupation. Language DOES matter, very much

so.
Let's call it what it is.

[uppityperson]

15. I call it the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq

Yes, it is a type of war, but calling it War gives it a legitimacy (word wise) that it does not deserve. People respond differently to War and Occuation, and there is a difference.

Military and Iraqis and others involved on all sides are just as dead, as much damage has been done, but calling it War implies it is legitimate.

[msongs]

19. the "war" is over. it IS NOW an occupation, and YES, words do matter

because the democrats are spouting the republicon talking points, so they sound just like republicons.

Every democrat should use the word occupation, so at least they will sound different, even if substantialily is irrelevant to them.

the war ended when the "enemy", the Iraq military, and sadaam's government, collapsed and quit fighting back.

It then became an occupation of a surrendered state.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[pitohui]

22. if words mattered you wouldn't be afraid to call a war a war

every time a democrat goes all mealy mouth, god kills a kitten -- and the GOP gets to bomb another wedding party, but oh wait a minute, i must be imagining all those bombs in the news, since this is not a war, merely an occupation


but like it or not what is going on in iraq is a full fledged shooting war

the fear of facing facts, the fear of simple clear declarative language, has proved deadly to our side

the evil doers aren't afraid of frank plain language, why are we? after all, we actually have reality and honesty on our side...why do we insist on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

[pettypace]

21. agreed

I'll call it a war when someone can explain what army the US is battling.

[pitohui]

25. that's what the british said in 1776

sorry people are being bombed and killed, it's a war or the word has no damn meaning

[pettypace]

34. civil war between arabs mainly

The OP was correct in stating the conventional 'war' was declared over 5-1-03, as the Iraq army was obliterated - the US has pulverized that same army in its last two 'wars'.

To your point pitohui, were the Patriots not organized or had a headman general in Washington? Who exactly is the 'commander' of the Iraq/Al Qaeda/Fedayeen/Insurgency group that the US is at 'war' with? No uniforms involved is there?


Lastly, Saddam did not want an armed conflict with anyone in 2003...the US and UK committed an indefensible act of aggression towards them, which has led to daily bombings and killings we see today.

The US should have confronted Islamic extremism, only it didn't exist in Iraq under Saddam. I believe he should be returned to power to make this right.

[ryanus]

23. will do

[gasperc]

28. and it's not the War in Iraq but the War ON Iraq

[Nunyabiz]

35. The USA has NOT been at WAR since 1945

It was always an "Occupation".
Same with Vietnam

[pettypace]

39. I'd say Vietnam was more of a conventional war compared to the current situation in Iraq.

NVA troops

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. A war requires that both sides be able to fight. And to actually do so.

This was an invasion.

[spirit of wine]

43. Afghanistan was a war

Iraq has always been an Occupation. Even when our soldiers have had the unfortunate circumstance of being taken, a war environment would have called these troops MIA's, but instead they notified the news as being kidnapped. The semantics of not really being at war does matter because the congress never authorized the Iraq part at all.