Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1312 Editor's Choice: 15
-
-- treming930
[Read the article: The cold price of hot blood]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Failure of "War"
Bird94 says that the U.S. declared war on Germany. That’s true, but only happened after Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. The U.S. did not unilaterally declare war on Germany because of the fact that it was allied with Japan (as Bird94 implies). A small historical detail, but an essential one to remember when bandying about comparisons between U.S. policy in Iraq and U.S. entry into WWII.
Also, Bird94 says that sometimes, war is the only solution to a problem. We’re not in agreement on this point. War is, by definition, a failure—a failure of diplomacy, of imagination, of common sense. Even WWII, a war that is routinely brought up as an example (the only example?) of a “good” and “necessary” war only came about after a multitude of failures to squelch fascism and militarism through active, nonviolent means.
One might argue that after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. had no choice but to go to war with Japan. But even if one grants that, this situation is a far cry from the situation in Iraq, the invasion of which was a matter of choice, something even its most stalwart champions admit.
There are any number of other problems with the parallels Bird94 draws between WWII and Iraq, including the financial effects, but I trust these are obvious enough as not to require a lot of discussion.
An even more important point, though, is whether “war” is the right term to use in connection with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. As the article itself notes, the concept of war carries with it all sorts of semi-mythical and religious connotations. I’m afraid that, in addition to not being an accurate term simply by nature of its dictionary definition, “war” is a term that is continuing problem in Iraq.
The “war,” such as it was, began and ended in 2003. Any application of the term to the aftermath of the invasion is metaphorical. There is no identifiable “enemy” we are at war with. “Insurgency” is a handy bit of wordplay that puts a unifying label on a widely disparate number of groups and individuals who are in conflict as much with one another as they are with the U.S. There is not government or state whose capitulation we seek.
Yet, even those who strongly oppose the occupation of Iraq continue to label the situation a “war.” They refer to their position as “anti-war.” They talk about the costs of the continued “war.” They display bumper stickers calling for an end to “this endless war.”
But “war” conjures up (particularly among Americans) notions of triumphalism—of fighting for victory. To decide to end a “war” is, in many people’s minds, the same thing as “defeat” or “surrender.” As long as we trade in the misleading and politically potent term “war,” any decisions made about what policy to pursue in Iraq will be mired in faux-nostalgia and jingoistic notions of national honor, not rational and humane common sense.
So yes, let’s talk about the cost of the war, but let’s be careful with our terminology and realize that, for the most part, we’re talking about the cost of the endless occupation of Iraq. Perhaps if we call it for what it is, we’ll have a better chance of bringing some semblance of reason to the discussion.
-- treming930
You're right. It's not much of a "war" in Iraq anymore. Which isn't to say that our troops there are anything less than the incredibly brave, heroic figures we know them to be. But the "war" part -- our army fighting the Iraqi army -- was, as the administration privately predicted, a "cakewalk" that was over in an eyeblink. One of the most one-sided "wars" in history. All credit to our guys who planned it and fought it.
So what do we have left? Occupation is clearly the wrong term. The duly-elected Iraqi government wants us there, is cooperating with us, and generally feels that there woud be massive bloodshed if we left.
So why not "peacekeeping"? That's what all the Canadian/French/UN/Swedish/Danish/Labour/World Bank types want us to do, right? We're peacekeeping. Call it what you want. But does anybody seriously think that we're not doing the right thing and doing good there, with our forces in the region? Building and protecting oil revenues, power grids, communications, infrastructure, security forces, etc., etc.
As for the "failure of diplomacy", I remember the voices on the far left who claimed that our blockade/embargo of Iraq was costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. I never believed it, but the "failure of diplomacy" argument is a joke.
Before anybody else complains about "counterinsurgency" warfare, please point me to the place in Salon where I can find writing about the monstrous crimes committed by the terrorists, the suicide bombers and the IED makers of the middle east.
-
bollocks?
[Read the article: The cold price of hot blood]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess I don't have to worry about you voting against the Republican in November.
But if you'd like to organize (organise?) a contingent of "Britons for Obama," and campaign on the platform that the U.S. Air Force are "savages" whose 500-lb. bombs are the moral equivalent of IEDs, have at it. But since Obama won't have any of it (I can only hope and pray that Obama will make "Air Force savagery" a plank in his campaign platform), you'll probably need to crank up a "British Greens for Cynthia McKinney" coalition.