This’s another pretty straightforward question for debate. Obviously, there’s not a straightforward answer, or there wouldn’t be much to debate.
Is the war in Iraq over?
I would think so. there is not an “army” in the conventional sense to oppose the invaders.
Minimum of two armies “in the conventional sense” to qualify as a war?
What constitutes an army “in the conventional sense”?
I would say its become a Guerrilla War… but by this standard Vietnam was not a war until the regular north vietnamese troops were involved. The difference being that in vietnam people from another country were invading the south…
Could there be such a thing as an Occupation War ?
The question is meaningless until you define “war”. For every different definition the answer will be diferent. In the wider sense given to the word (like the war on drugs) the war is, obviously, not over. Probably it is not even the end of the beginning.
Sure, its called a Policing Action, wich is how Vietnam was classified in the beginning.
simonx
ar·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n. pl. ar·mies
A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.
often Army The entire military land forces of a country.
A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary forces.
Saen,
When did the war end?
Well, as Sailor said, until you define a ‘war’ its kind of hard to debate this topic. We’ll be splitting hairs here.
IMO, by MY definition of what constitutes a ‘war’, its over. The Iraqi main field force is pretty much toast, the government is deposed and in hiding. The FIGHTHING however is still going on, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. In WWII, in both Japan and Germany, the respective countries surrendered (thus the war was over), however the FIGHTING went on for months or ever years later. Yet we mark the end of the ‘war’ as when the countries surrendered, not when the fighting stopped. There was no unifying concept left to them, no government, no leader…it was just fighting for fightings sake.
The difference between Vietnam and here is that in Vietnam the VC were fighting for a unified and expressed goal. There was a leader and an idea (Ho’chimin (sp) and communism). Here, so far, there have been no leaders emerging, no stated goal save kill Americans and drive them out…fighting to fight. Its not exactly the same thing. When/if a true leader with a true agenda emerges in Iraq, when the efforts are pretty well unified and coordinated (I don’t mean the sporatic attacks, I mean with some goal in mind that isn’t simply to kill some Americans), THEN you could say, IMO, that the ‘war’ has re-ignited or that we have a new ‘war’ on our hands there.
Anyway, define ‘war’ better and I might change my stance.
-XT
I assumed that what constitutes war was an integral part of the debate. If there was a cut and dry definition then this could’ve gone to GQ.
sigh
Why not read my posts and figure out what u think I meant by the war is over because there is no army to oppose.
sigh sigh sigh
sigh sigh sigh
Was there ever a certain point when the Iraqi army was no more? Do you know when the war ended, like a date perhaps as opposed to conditions?
sigh sigh sigh
sigh sigh sigh
Fighting went on for years ?the date those conditions were met. You demand semantics i see, well google and try to find when the highest level Iraqi military person surrendered or became incommunicado with his army. That is your date.
If you want a ceremonial date, that may be whenBush gave his speech on the aircraft carrier.
Why dont you answer the previous psoters question on what you want to define as a war. I dont want to debate that since Saddam is nt captured or dead that the army is not technically surrendered or that theer may be Iraqi military troops in communication with a leader and still be fighting as an unrecognizedarmy.
So yes…
SIGH
From Rashak Mani
In the case of Japan it did. I remember reading (no cite atm) that several Japanese were killed in the Philipeans during the 50’s and 60’s in clashes with the local government. They still thought the war was going on. The last hold outs we know of were not brought in until what? The late 60’s early 70’s? I don’t remember exactly. In Germany underground fighting when on for months after the ‘surrender’, well into '46.
To me, this kind of thing doesnt constitute ‘war’…it constitutes, well, fighting. Not the same thing. It doesn’t even constitute a guerrella war (yet) IMO, as I haven’t seen any evidence that things are either organized or coordinated (again, not talking about individual attacks…tactics…but strategically).
So, by MY definition of what a ‘war’ is, the ‘war’ is over in Iraq. However, how can we debate this subject when someone else’s definition of what a ‘war’ is might be simply continued fighting? To others, this entire thing might not be considered a true ‘war’, but some other quasi-definition…maybe to them the whole conflict lacks the scale of a true ‘war’ based on the amounts of causalties we suffered…or even that the Iraqi’s suffered. For instance, more folks were killed in single battles in WWI than on both sides of this conflict…or say at Gettysburg during the Civil War. Personally, I don’t subscribe to this, but I can see how someone COULD. So, until you define what we are talking about, who knows?
-XT
SIGHSIGHSIGH**SIGH
SIGHSIGHSIGH**SIGH
I like Gene Hackmans quote from Behind Enemy Lines (aka BAT 22 1/2) - “unless this ship is in port, we are at WAR!!!”
-are you in a foreign country?
-did anyone shoot at you or throw something that explodes at you today?
-did you shoot at anyone today?
Really the only definition of “war” that matters.
Any reason you haven’t offered up your own position on your debate topic?
No, it didn’t. This is a right-wing propaganda lie told to create a bad analogy with Iraq. It does not have even a shred of historical credibility and it has been comprehensively and utterly refuted.
See for instance lengthy discussion here
In particular note the total number of US hostile deaths in the German occupation ie a grand total of zero according to the Rand corporation, and a grand total of three by my reckoning.
You have a lot to add, don’t you?
To me, “war” implies two sovreign nations. Unless you believe Saddam is in a supervillain buker, what you’ve got here is an occupation with resistance.
In the Vietnam “police action” there was always an enemy government in Hanoi.
Webster’s New Universal Unabrgd disagrees with me, saying war can be “between parties in the same state,” which I guess is what we got here.