Friday, March 24, 2006

We are not at war!

We were at war!

We were at war with the country of Iraq from March 20, 2003 until May 1, 2003. We are now and armed occupier of Iraq. It is important to draw a line here and make clear a distinction between when we, arguably, illegally invaded Iraq without a formal Congressional declaration of war and when we became an occupation army in armed conflict with Iraqi insurgents.

We invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003 and were at war in Iraq from that time until it ended on May 1, 2003 when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations after we defeated the Iraqi army. Note that I said “after we defeated the Iraqi army” because that was the end of the war between nation states. As of that date, May 1, 2003, the United States Army became an army of occupation, which is what it continues to be today. It is important to understand that since that date the United States military has simply been one of several parties engaged in a conflict with and armed Iraqi insurgency. But, since May 1, 2003 when the war with Iraq ended and the insurgency began there has been a significant transformation of the conflict. There has been a definitive transition from and armed insurgency, where the United States military was one of the primary targets, to a civil war where the United States military is now simply another target for insurgents and a training target for terrorists. I add the “training target for terrorists” because during this same time al Qaeda made Iraq, not a war zone, but a terrorist training area.

Iraq is at war!

Based on the encyclopedia’s description, of which I am using Wikipedia for convenience here, I submit that Iraq is now fully engaged in a civil war with multiple internal warring factions.

Civil war - A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.


We are not at war!

At least we are not at war against terrorism or terror or terrorist and here is why I am of that opinion.

Here are some definitions from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.

  • War: A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

  • Terror: A state of intense fear.

  • Terrorism: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

(Now here is the funny part of this post.) Now I don’t know about you but, unless the term “state” that is being used in the phrase, “a state of intense fear” is a geographic location with contiguous borders I’m not sure how you have a war with it. Now I also know that Terrorism is a noun but I’m still not sure how you have a war with “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”. Is that like some special kind of country or nation or state that I wasn’t told about? If it is then all I can say is that that is a pretty odd name for a country and I’m betting they don’t get a lot of tourists. (This is the end of the funny part of this post.)

The reality is this; the world is involved in an armed struggle with terrorists. These are not soldiers that we are in conflict with. They are terrorists. They are armed criminals. This is not a war but an armed law enforcement operation against criminals and radicals who use terrorism to coerce and intimidate the law abiding citizens of the world in order to achieve their militant goals. To declare war on these elements is not only not possible but it is, in my view, irresponsible and does discredit to our own armed forces by equating them to these criminals. You capture and bring criminals to justice but you do not honor them as soldiers as though they were some army marching to battle for their country, home and family.

I believe that it is critical that we clearly articulate the current conflicts and identify them for what they are and here is how I see it.

  • Iraq is in a civil war as a result of the US invasion and the United States military has become nothing more than an occupying force that is propping up the Iraqi government.

  • The Bush administration has no real demonstrable plan to enable the Iraqi’s to stand on their own while simultaneously extricating the United States military from the occupation.

  • The Bush administration is spending vast amounts of money, billions per week (potentially totaling $1 Trillion dollars or more), on occupying and rebuilding Iraq that should be spent on providing security for the United States borders, ports, and infrastructure and providing enhanced funding for counter terrorism agencies and organizations within the US government.

  • The Bush administration is not effectively addressing terrorism through concrete steps such as bolstering international relations and cooperation but instead they are focused on the occupation of a country that is a distraction from the real threat to our own nation.

The Bush administration will continue to poor our soldier’s blood into the sands of the Iraqi dessert as long as we allow it.

I want to add one last thought here. If the definition of terrorism is, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, then it is my opinion that George W. Bush and his administration use terrorism daily when they continue to threaten the American people with their fear tactics of color coded alerts and constant browbeating of the American public with how threatened we are by these superhuman terrorist. Yes they are dangerous but quit beating us on the head with them and politicizing the issue. Defend America and stop grabbing power. And by the way please loose the “Homeland” bit. We defeated the “Fatherland” 60 years ago and it just gives me a creepy feeling and it ain’t the same war Dick and Don and Doof.

Those Are The Sergeant Majors Thoughts On That.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Quit politicizing the issue?! I think you performed a major politicization of the issue sgt. major. We ARE at war, and we ARE fighting for our very survival. To do otherwise would be to invite the terrorists over here, and I got a belly full of them on 9/11 thank you very much!

I think we should kick them in the ass until they give up or their all dead. The alternative is to stick our heads in the sand and let them kick us, U.S., in the ass.

Larry A Myers said...

Steve, I must disagree with you. I do not believe I am politicizing the issue. I believe I am stating reality. War has a very specific meaning and one doesn’t deal with terrorist with the same elements, tactics etc.., that make up war. Some are common but most, the vast majority, are not. It requires a completely different approach and we are not focused on those elements required to win and armed struggle against terrorists. The only terrorists in Iraq are those in training. To use the term war is disingenuous on the part of this administration.

Anonymous said...

Amen, brother. Well said, Sergeant Major. Like any good leader, your primary concern is with the well-being of your soldiers, and I will always support that.

Eric

Anonymous said...

The SgtMaj is precisely correct that we are not currently officially at war. He should step up to the plate, though, and fully embrace the illegality of the war we fought. Without a declaration of war by Congress, or the authorization of a higher body (i.e., the United Nations), the U.S. - in fact, the administration of George W. Bush - committed a crime by leading our country into conflict with another state. Now, of course, we were at war in the sense of shooting and killing, but that was not a legally prosecuted war.

As for the notion that SgtMaj Myers is "politicizing the issue," what Steve doesn't realize is that war is politics. To divorce politics from war is to change the character of America from the representative republic it is (was?) into something else. There are, and have to be, checks and balances on the power of the executive, even in times of conflict. The United States has functioned as a democracy during every conflict we ever engaged in, holding elections, maintaining the tradition of a loyal opposition. That has caused us tensions, of course - Lincoln's need to promote political party-affiliated generals who, in some cases, were thoroughly unqualified during the Civil War, for example - but we survived and prospered. To argue that we must abandon our traditions is to abandon the very idea of America.

Anonymous said...

very well said sergeant major. happy to hear from you. i'll be checking in from time to time. cpo benson usn (ret)