Is the War in Iraq Over?

Was there a ‘war’ in the first place ?

And does it matter ?

Fwiw, I feel uncomfortable adopting the language this administration wants us to adopt because it implicitly means we accept and see the issues and world on their terms. I don’t. There was no war.

Imho, ‘war’ was a slogan, by the use of which Bush was able to contribute a sense of legitimacy to what he did because of what ‘war’ historically means; noble, just, winning, good over evil, success, stronger, freedom . . . sure ‘war’ sounds tough and hard, but it also sounds legit, legal and honest-dukes, pistols-at-dawn. Valiant.

So, for me, ‘War in Iraq’ is merely the slogan of choice of those setting the agenda in the US; it’s a short-hand, policy-for-idiots, spin-friendly, read-what-makes-you-feel-good-into-it scam, like its kindred spirits the ‘war on terrorism’, ‘war on drugs’ . . or any of the various other slogans-for-idiots that still seem terribly . . . vogue ?

  • btw, I did read about the US and UK rolling over some Ba’ath Party loyalists and taking their gig, I don’t want to characterise what Bush did there as a ‘war’. Unless someone can convince me otherwise ?

Was there a ‘war’ in the first place ?

And does it matter ?

Fwiw, I feel uncomfortable adopting the language this administration wants us to adopt because it implicitly means we accept and see the issues and world on their terms. I don’t. There was no war.

Imho, ‘war’ was a slogan, by the use of which Bush was able to contribute a sense of legitimacy to what he did because of what ‘war’ historically means; noble, just, winning, good over evil, success, stronger, freedom . . . sure ‘war’ sounds tough and hard, but it also sounds legit, legal and honest-dukes, pistols-at-dawn. Valiant.

So, for me, ‘War in Iraq’ is merely the slogan of choice of those setting the agenda in the US; it’s a short-hand, policy-for-idiots, spin-friendly, read-what-makes-you-feel-good-into-it scam, like its kindred spirits the ‘war on terrorism’, ‘war on drugs’ . . or any of the various other slogans-for-idiots that still seem terribly . . . vogue ?

  • btw, I did read about the US and UK rolling over some Ba’ath Party loyalists and taking their gig, I don’t want to characterise what Bush did there as a ‘war’. Unless someone can convince me otherwise ?

I don’t know how much proof you require.

I was there. I had to memorize all kinds of stuff in case we were shot down, I had to remove all identification except for my Geneva Convention card and my dogtags, I had to carry a pistol, among other survival items, and there were people on the ground hell bent on killing me.

That sounds like a war to me.

The number of US soldiers killed “after the war” has surpassed those killed “during the war”. The enemy seems to be pretty well organized.

It ain’t over til it’s over.

If the “war” is “over,” why so many tears from/for the families of the largest single contingent of National Guard troops today for final training before being deployed to Iraq?

I’m sure those families don’t give a rat’s ass about semantic games typified by the posts in this thread. Bullets and RPGs are immune to such things as well.

Wo what would the difference between Guerrilla War and Regular War be then ? The way some are defining war it would be a catchall definition of all types of war.

It’s not fully formed yet.
I’m leaning toward thinking that since we’re fighting members of th eIRaqi Baath party, (govt), mambers of the Republican Guard, (army), and members of the Fedayeen, that we’re still at war. Unless, we aren’t really fightng these people so much as we’re fighting regualr Iraqi citizens, then we may be involved in something with a different name.

Again, it all depends on your definition of what ‘war’ is, as I said before. Until you define what the term means, how can we debate whether or not its still happening? For example, London_Calling doesn’t think there was a war at all. I’m of the opinion that with the collapse of the regime and the destruction of their main field force, the ‘war’ is over (I’m NOT saying the fighting and dieing are over). Sailor and appearently Duckster are definining the ‘war’ as only being over when the last shot is fired and hostilities cease completely. Who is right? Beats the shit out of me. All of us? None of us?

From Duckster

Look, I’m not trying to say that its not dangerous there…or to minimize the trauma those families are feeling, both in the separation from their loved ones and the fear for the danger they are going into. I happen to have a cousin that I’m fairly fond of that is serving with the 82nd Airborn over there. As I’m part of a rather large hispanic family, I KNOW what its like to have family worry about a loved one over there…its not a mental excersize for me at all.

I also know, though, that being in the military alone is dangerous. It also sucks big time when you have to go on tour and are away from your family for extended periods of time. I’ve seen my share of tears just from that alone. I was in the Navy in my day, and I saw shipmates die on every tour…and lost a good friend during one of those. I’ve heard ground pounder types talk about being stationed in Korea, and how dangerous it was.

My best guess for all this is my old standby…time will tell. If this conflict stays what it is right now, a low level, fairly disorganized guerrilla insurgency, then HISTORY will probably mark the end of the WAR basically when Bush declaired it so…at the collapse of the regime and the final destruction of the main Iraqi field force. Unless, as London_Calling says, HISTORY percieves this to be a fairly minor conflict, not even deserving the title of a ‘war’. If, on the other hand, the guerrilla insurgency picks up steam, if the insurgents gain some kind of outside support with money and arms, and more importantly if a true leader emerges that this new phase of the conflict is associated with, then HISTORY might agree completely with Sailor and say that the war went on.

-XT

Sounds like you’ve never been to war. Not as if I have, but I know it when I see it. War also means burning people out of their homes, raping the women and wearing a neckless made of your enemies ears. It is not “pistols at dawn”. It is “drop a Tomahawk missle on his ass 20 minutes before dawn while he’s loading his pistol”.

And for the record, Saddam is “evil”.

Well, I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that a definition of war is crucial to this debate. The omission of a definition is intentional. If there was a cut and dry definition of war, then this would be more of a GQ question than a GD, no?

SimonX, I suppose so. :slight_smile: I guess we’ll all be argueing this thing from our own definition then. To me, that puts it more in the IMHO section then.

Reguards,
XT

Just checking to see if there’re any new opinions about this question.

Is the war in Iraq over?

Bush talks about “War on Terror”… but officially Iraq is NOT being termed as a combat assignment. GIs don’t get combat pay either. Seems contradictory doesn’t it ?

What a bust.

Do you happen to have a good citation for this handy?

Four killed in Iraq mortar attack