This is actually a bit more of a GQ, but I figure it has some strong debate elements, and no real “factual” answer, so here it is.
This morning I listened to some piece on NPR about the recent troop reduction announced by Sec Def Rumsfeld. They continually referred to the progress of the war. But isn’t this essentially just an occupation now? There is, AFAIK, no new territory to be gained, only territory to be held. There’s no doubt that as long as we’re there, Baghdad is not going to fall to some organized or unorganized threat. What goals, from a purely military standpoint, remain to be achieved?
I understand that the term “Occupation” can have some negative connotations. But isn’t this the reality? We’ve deposed a government and installed a new one. We’re not fighting any kind of army or organized resistance. This is not to say that Iraq is not an imminently dangerous place. But I think of a war as having some sort of objective… what are our remaining objectives vis a vis “war”? It seems our remaining objectives are socio-political.
When I was a kid I often heard reference to “Occupied Germany”. We still “occupy” Germany to some extent, although we are strong allies now. What’s wrong with referring to “Occupied Iraq”?
Or maybe I misunderstand the terms? Please enlighten me.
We were not trying to gain any territory in the Vietnam War… er, Occupation? The Confederacy wasn’t trying to take over the North in the, uh, Police Action Among the States.
War is simply a state of armed hostilities. There’s no need to get too fancy with the term.
In both of your examples there was, I believe (not sure about Vietnam) an eventual surrender, peace talks, etc. This is not really possible in Iraq, although I suppose given the overall craziness of the Hussein trial he could walk into court and surrender and sue for peace at some point.
But in Iraq there is not really anyone who could surrender, unless the US enters Paris Peace Talks with the insurgents, I suppose. So how do you know when it’s over. When do you stop waiting for Godot?
It is no longer a war, and it is no longer exactly an occupation, depending on how much control the local government has. I’m voting for police action… they are policing Iraq, in the sense of cleaning it up and patrolling.
USA, or anyone of the coalition, did not declare war.
Saddam did not declare war.
Earlier, when the Iraqi people saw (mostly) the coalition as liberators, it was not called “war”. It was called ‘lberation’ or whatever, but war. Just check the official papers some year back. “Mission accomplished!” - remember?
It was an attack, became an occupation.
It is still an occupation, maybe even more now, when all the questions are solved and goals achived:
No WMD
Saddam and his sons captured or dead
Constitution written
Elections held
And the “Mission” should really be accomplished, but the occupation is still continuing.
I do not think we can call it a “prolonged crisis” or anything like that. To say “The education and breeding of terrorism* is prolonged” would be nearer. Or how?
You heard wrong. A declaration of war is not necessary to have a war. Declarations of war have not been formally required by international law for more than two centuries.
And, FWIW, the Pentagon is content with using the term Vietnam War.
ShibbOleth, the insistence that war has to involve the taking or territory or a peace treaty have no basis in anything but your own expectations. It makes as much sense as me claiming that I have never been to a “real” basketball game because the event I did go to did not involve an underdog team beating the odds with a last minute three-point shot as the buzzer was about to go off, even though that’s how I’d like it to have been.
Our troops are in a foreign country fighting people who want to kill them. That’s a war. Calling it anything else is just spin.
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties
Now, there is definitely a conflict. However, despite the lack of a “surrender” It’s no longer between nations or states. I suppose that parties might fit. But who is the other “party”?
Here’s the appropriate definition of occupation:
Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.
Both of these seem to fit better than “war” at this point. That there still exists an active resistance by insurgents does not seem to negate that this is now an occupation.
BTW, I’m not personally inferring that occupation is bad, it just seems more appropriate.
Ravenman, I agree that the Iraq War is a war—for one thing, it began with the invasion of a country and the toppling of its government, which are acts of war in pretty much anybody’s book—but I can’t agree that “troops in a foreign country fighting people who want to kill them” automatically counts as a sufficient condition to define “war”.
A lot of recent UN peacekeeping actions could also have been described that way at some point, but I don’t think it makes sense to say, for instance, that Nepal was ever “at war” with Sierra Leone.
I disagree with occupation, because we are no longer in control of the country, at least in theory. Iraq has its own government, now. We are after the occupation, assisting a legitimate government.
It would have been called an Uprising, Rebellion or Revolt had it not been successful, perhaps. Might depend on the length of the conflict. But we did Declare Independence and set up a provisional government. The Iraqi insurgency seems to be just aimed at wreaking havoc and perhaps ultimately driving us out of the country, although democracy will probably be better at that.
But if the duly elected government of Iraq decided that they wanted us out tomorrow, does anybody really believe we’d just up and leave? At this point the government in Iraq is a government by proxy of the USA. After the most recent elections have installed a new government then it’s more independent. But we’re still calling the shots for all intents and purposes.
