Semantics in Iraq: War v. Occupation

[Earth_First]

It's quite obvious that the "War" on Terrorism is about as hollow as the "War" on Drugs and the "War" on Poverty (et. al). What particularly concerns me, however, is the semantics of the "War" in Iraq.

The majority of us here at Democratic Underground recognize continued operations in Iraq as an occupation, yet we continually refer to it as the "war" in Iraq. It allows a great disservice to the cause to continually refer to this as the "War in Iraq" it has been an occupation for nearly three years.

I urge everyone to call an ace an ace, and begin to call it as face value: an Occupation in Iraq.



"...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2627-2003May1

[Jack Rabbit]

1. It is an occupation and a war

Iraq is no more sovereign than was India under the British Raj. We all know that.

Nevertheless, there is a war going on there. It is difficult to say exactly what it is, since the occupiers are not so much fighting a unified resistance to foreign rule as a varied collection of different insurgencies who are at odds with each other as to what a post-Saddam Iraq should look like but who all desire an end to foreign rule in Iraq.