"War" is defined as "a conflict carried on by force of arms." Oh, sure, it can be used as a description of just about any conflict, but when we speak of "World War II," for instance, we're speaking primarily of a conflict of armies. When we went to Korea in the 50's, it wasn't called "war"; it was called a "police action." So was Vietnam. Sometimes we send troops to events that end up in conflicts that are not called "wars." We didn't, as an example, call it "war" when we sent troops to assist in Somalia, even though some of our soldiers were killed in the fighting. So not every use of arms is classified as "war."
One of the primary issues in the 2008 election is "the War in Iraq." I'm having a tough time with that term. When we invaded Iraq, it was a war. Our forces took on Saddam's forces. It was one nation's army against another nation's army. That is the classic definition of "war." And then ... it was over. The people of Iraq celebrated the fall of Saddam and his government. The troops put down their arms and ran or surrendered. It was over. President took his renowned if not infamous photo op in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. It was over.
Of course, it wasn't over. The fighting continued. More Americans died. Americans continue to die. But the question is, "Can we call it war?" You see, it is no longer a battle between two armies. As much as the Press would like to call them "insurgents", it's not as much of "an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority" as it is a group of terrorists intent on preventing Iraq from becoming its own nation. Americans are no longer fighting an army; they're fighting criminals. These are not warriors; they're hit-and-run cowards. Any battles are at the behest of American forces because the terrorists prefer to vanish rather than fight. Can we really call this a war?
I'm tired of hearing it called that. I don't think it is a war anymore. I don't think we're fighting anything that resembles an army. We're trying to provide stability in an unstable place. We're operating as a heavily armed police force. We're training the Iraqis to take over what we're doing and they're doing it. But unless we're willing to call it "war" when the Iraqi police and army do it, can't we stop calling it "the war in Iraq?" Frankly, I think the term is too big for the current events. It was a war, but now it's just a police action. Can't we drop that term?
2 comments:
The truth is that language has lost its independence in an increasingly post-modern society. It is now subservient to the speaker's motives. I heard an MSNBC commentator the other day ask, "Will we ever win this war?" I laughed, but he was dead serious.
Most bizarre to me is the use of the phrase "war on terror" as if we can fight terror somehow. Can we win a "war on terror"? Don't be ridiculous! Terror will always exist. We aren't fighting "terror"; we're fighting terrorists. Even at that, terrorists will always exist. So it's all nonsense to me. Truly these terms are losing their meaning.
Post a Comment