A lot of people in the news media, and Democrats in general, have been misrepresenting the ongoing conflict in Iraq as a war. It is not a war, it is but one battlefield in the ongoing War on Terror.
Let's look at the definition of war:
war (wôr) Pronunciation Key
n.1.
- 1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
- 2. The period of such conflict.
- 3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
- 4. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
- 5. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
2.
- 1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
- 2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
Now look at the definition of a battleground:
bat·tle·field (bÄt'l-fÄ“ld') Pronunciation Key
n. In both senses also called battleground.
- 1. An area where a battle is fought.
- 2. A sphere of contention.
So, if we are fighting a War on Terror is Iraq a war unto itself or is it just one battlefield in the war? Think hard about this one because it is very important.
Let's take a moment to look back at a few recent wars:
The American war of Independence (also called the American Revolution) involved fighting between those who wanted America to break away from the British Empire and those who did not. That may be a broad brush to paint these two parties with but it fits.
During this war there were many battles, many battles. At one time the British seized control of New York City and nearly captured General Washington himself! Did Americans force their fledgling government to give up on the "War in New York"? Of course not! New York City was just one battlefield among many.
Let's fast forward to the American Civil War, a very bloody war where most of those who died were Americans. Civil wars tend to be that way as they are often fought between citizens of the same nation, hence the name "civil" war. They don't call it a "civil" war because people are being polite.
When things started going bad for the northerners did Lincoln throw in the towel and give up? No, he changed generals and appointed Grant as the new General in charge of his armies. Even though Lee was a superior tactician Grant had much better resources on his side and was able to defeat Lee and his forces.
Were there protesters marching in DC after each battle? Were there people telling the president that it was OK to fight in Virginia but not in Georgia? Of course not! The generals fought their battles where ever they found their enemies.
Are you getting the picture yet? No? Let me bring something a bit more current, and a lot more global, to your attention.
World War 2.
World War 2 was a war fought between the Allied powers and the Axis powers. The major players on the Allied side were; England, America and Russia. The Axis powers are most known for consisting of Germany and Japan. Yes there were other smaller nations involved on each side such as Italy but the major movers and shakers on both sides are listed above.
World War 2 was waged across most of Europe. The Russians, who began on the side of Germany, later switched sides and became an enemy of Germany. I don't readily call them a "friend" of the Allied powers because they had a bad habit of taking American bombers and reverse engineering them and producing their own from those engineering plans. If anything, the Russians were out for themselves.
As the war waged many countries became battlefields. France was a battlefield. Italy was a battlefield, Germany was a battlefield, Northern Africa was a battlefield!
Did the Allied powers ignore the battlefield of France because the Germans were based in Germany? No, that would be stupid. The Allied powers fought the Germans (and the Japanese) where ever they found them.
Fast forward to the present. The terrorists groups who have taken to the umbrella name of "Al-Qaeda" have been attacking western interests for years. In fact, these groups declared war on America long before America even realized they were there.
After the events of 9-11 unfolded this war could no longer be ignored or treated as a minor problem. Now that both parties were in agreement that a war was going on America acted.
Afghanistan became the first battlefield in this new "Global War on Terror". Even though Bin Laden managed to escape death his forces were on the run. His safe haven in Afghanistan was no longer as safe as it once was.
The continued saber rattling of Saddam Hussein brought America's (and the worlds) attention back on him. All those years of sanctions appeared to not be working. Most of the world's Intelligence communities believed he had WMDs. The final line in the sand was drawn and the invasion began.
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq did not begin as a battlefield in the War on Terror. No, Iraq began as a war unto itself. Once the Iraqi army was defeated and Saddam removed from power terrorist elements descended on Iraq and turned the country into a battlefield in the War on Terror.
Iraq is no longer about WMDs. Iraq is now about killing the terrorists who have decided to make that country a battlefield. American forces are not fighting Iraqis over there, they are fighting terrorists. Until the terrorist elements who have decided to bring the war to Iraq are defeated American forces can not leave.
What many anti-war people fail to understand is that war is not the opposite of peace. Peace is not simply "the absence of war".
The anti-war movement wants the fighting in Iraq to end no matter who wins. Well, if Americans leave now who wins? The terrorists win. Their main goal is to drive us out of the Middle East. By leaving they win.
We need to stop calling Iraq a war. The Iraq war ended when we found Saddam in a spider hole. What we have now is a country that has become a battlefield in the War on Terror. No one told Roosevelt that he had to leave France because the Germans were in Germany. So why is the American left telling Bush to get out of Iraq when terrorists are still there?
Some Democrats have even decided to stop using the term "War on Terror". They (falsely) believe that if they call it something else it will become something else. There is a word for that line of thinking: denial.
Arthur Neville Chamberlain tried this approach with the Munich Agreement and quickly declared that the agreement represented "peace for our time." In March of 1939 Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. So much for appeasement.
Think about it.
-- Danny Mc Guire
Thanks for those thoughts. They are stimulating in an objective manner, and I appreciate that you’re reasonable with the issue(s) even as many others get blinded by their emotions. I also appreciate using lessons from history to substantiate your opinions. Bravo, well-written.
Thanks for the compliment. I had to shorten the original version of the article before Steve would agree to publish it on here.
If I get a good reaction to this one I may write another in a few weeks.
Your article is exactly what I’ve been trying to tell people since the end of the invasion — except that I said the war was over when Saddam went into hiding, not when he was found.
Danny writes some very interesting articles. He has more he wants me to print and I may just do that.
Tell him to share the wealth. :-)
At some point we all will have to stop being so proud and admit, whatever you call what we are doing over there, it’s not working out well for all parties involved. I assume this will happen when we have a president that can pronounce the word “terror”.
Grant proved that a superior tactician can be defeated if you throw enough bodies into the mix. Former President Clinton proved that shooting down a few helicopters and dragging bodies of dead Americans through the streets is a quick way to defeat America. Funny thing about that is that the troops who were there were itching to get back into the city and retrieve their comrades. It was not the troops who gave up on Somalia, it was the administration.
As to your statement of “it’s not working out well for all parties involved.” All I can say is that war never works out well for all parties involved. War is hell. Once you accept the fact that the job of a soldier is to kill people and break things you will have a better understanding of what war is.
I’m not trying to be cavlier about this but, in the grand scheme of things, Iraq is just one battlefield in this war. Not only is it just one battlefield but it is a battlefield we can win on if we give the generals in charge the leeway and funding they need to execute their mission and reach their objectives. When Senators stand up in Congress and proclaim Iraq to be lost you have to ask them, “if we lost, who won?”
Oh yes, I have another article coming up about how the Democrats botched the whole issue with the Veto of the Emergency Military Funding package.
I was wondering who would be in the 28% …
You have an interesting angle of approach in tackling this topic. Is it a war or is it a battlefield? Is this your best arguement against leaving Iraq? A visit to dictionary.com and a quick and glib recap of American history?
you wrote “… if Americans leave now who wins? The terrorists win. Their main goal is to drive us out of the Middle East. By leaving they win.”
Can you explain to me who the terrorists are and what exactly they win if we leave?
I agree with you that we need to fight the terrorists, but who and where are they? Iraq is in a civil war that we started by killing the man that scared them all into line. The war on terror is not a war like any of the wars you have mentioned. Namely because the “terrorists” aren’t from Terrortown or anyplace specific, they come from all over and will fight where they see an opportunity. The battlefield is everywhere. The War is in their minds.
The terrorists are differing groups of radical Islamists who are loosely aligned with each other because they share a common goal; removing all non-Muslims from Muslim lands.
I believe the spark that lit the blaze occured when the Saudis turned down Bin Laden’s offer just prior to the First Gulf War. It has been said that Bin Laden offered his people to help protect the Saudis against Iraq. The Saudis did not believe in Bin Laden and instead sought help from non-Muslims. Bin Laden saw this as a great insult to Islam.
Because the Gulf War did not end with a decisive victory non-Muslim forces were forced to stay in the area to continue to contain Saddam. This caused more anger and resentment among the radicals and they began staging attacks on Americans abroad.
I do not believe that Iraq is in a true civil war state right now. What we have is small outside groups attempting to cause a civil war by blowing up bombs in markets and destroying mosques. These small groups are trying to get a civil war started with their tactics and they should be stopped.
The Global War on Terror is more akin to the Cold War than any traditional war in that every country is a potential battleground. As in the Cold War, we did not let politicians get in the way of executing operations in foreign countries. The only politicizing of the Cold War (in my recolection) was in the Kennedy-Nixon debates when Kennedy said our missiles were not as good as those of the Soviets. Even though ours were better Nixon could not tell the truth as it was a national security issue.
If, as you say, “The battlefield is everywhere” why should we remove ourselves from a known battlefield in defeat? We do need an end-game for the Iraq battlefield and I believe one of the key components of that end-game involves getting Iraq to a point where it can defend itself.
The Iraqi military is growing. They are being trained. They are stepping up to plate. The political side is an animal of a different stripe.
Politicians are the same world-wide. Their job is to do what is best for their constituents. Sometimes they focus on things that are good for all, sometimes they only focus on those who elected them.
The Iraqi government is not the American government. They use a parlimentary system. During Saddam’s time a minority enforced rule over a minority (think Apartheid South Africa) and now the tables have turned. The once oppressed minority now finds itself with power it did not have before. Human nature being what it is some of these people want to stick it to their former oppressors. The terrorists know this and they also know that if they can do anything that will help push Iraq towards a civil war they will do it.
If I could tell you “where” the terrorists are I would tell the military and they would wipe them out. As to who they are, they are radical Islamists who want all non-Muslims out of Muslim lands. They are people who will think nothing of blowing up a bomb in a crowded market full of civilians.
The only way to find these people is by using human assests on the ground. Talk to people. Make their lives better. Give them a reason to see that they have a choice between living in fear and living in freedom.
As long as the Iraqi people think that America has lost it’s resolve and will to fight they will side with who they believe to be the winner. No one wants to back a losing team so why would they back the American military if they think the Americans are just going to leave? Besides, we saw what happened in Vietnam after we left. Who’s giving odds of the same thing happening if we leave Iraq before victory is achieved?
I agree that I did find the term ‘war on terror’ a bit ambiguous at first. There wasn’t any fixed enemy as such like in most wars as it’s a war on an abstract noun.