War or Occupation?
Some people say words are only words. They couldn't be more wrong. Words imply meaning, which dictate the discourse, which by a basis of focusing the attention of the certain facts and not on others, controls both perception and analysis. I think the seeds for learning the truth about America's current "wars" were spoken by John Kerry, unwittingly, when in attempting to unseat President Bush in the 2004 election, referred to the situation in Iraq as needing to "win the peace." It seemed off and everyone knew it. But no one asked why it felt so wrong.
There is no such thing, in terms of military objectives, as "winning the peace." Peace indicates an end of war and the beginning of diplomacy. Yet diplomacy is not what is happening in Iraq, no, the U.S. has not gotten to that stage yet. The same could be said in Afghanistan. In both locations, Americans wonder, why can't we win these wars? Why haven't we won these wars? Wait a minute. Didn't we? Weren't both wars won within months of engaging thesse nations?
Yes. They were. President Bush declared the "Mission Accomplished" in both cases, and he was right. But then, of course, the fight against the "terrorists" had to continue. Or call them "insurgents," if you will. Both are disingenuous in this context. Listen. There is no war being fought in either location. In both Iraq and Afghanistan the war was won, but the occupations are failing.
What the United States should have learned in Vietnam, but failed to, was to recognize that there was no war being fought, but an occupation. And there lies the fundamental problem. The American public does not want to be party to supporting an occupational, imperial military regime. Also, the military objectives of "occupation" are in direct opposition to "bringing freedom and democracy" to a people. If we allow them freedom, they have the freedom to fight us; they have the freedom to move about and barter in weapons and bombs and to spread hate speech. WWII is often compared to this war. Yet, if this was WWI, we would be putting people in prison camps (where they would NOT be tortured), and bombing villages who resisted American rule. You cannot possibly hope to win the "hearts and minds" of people as an occupational power, you can only break their will to fight back.
This leaves us with two options: 1) the U.S. military is inept and in their arrogance fails to realize this truth; or 2) they full well know it and are trying to experiment with ways to actually win an occupation as "the nice guy." With the collective memories of Vietnam fading, they try again what failed so miserably then. In fact, they may be trying it twice at once, in two different countries. One with NATO power, one mostly with U.S. forces (perhaps one as a control group?.
I certainly do not know what the truth of U.S. military intentions are in either Afghanistan or Iraq. However, what I do know is that our media needs to wake up and stop eating the line they are being fed; the American people likewise need to think for themselves, instead of being l placated by the wrong words. And in this case, the words mean everything. Think about it. Is America really in two wars? Or is it bogged down trying to occupy two foreign nations, without using the resources or methods that are required to actually occupy a nation safely?
||
posted by mW @ 2:38 PM
There is no such thing, in terms of military objectives, as "winning the peace." Peace indicates an end of war and the beginning of diplomacy. Yet diplomacy is not what is happening in Iraq, no, the U.S. has not gotten to that stage yet. The same could be said in Afghanistan. In both locations, Americans wonder, why can't we win these wars? Why haven't we won these wars? Wait a minute. Didn't we? Weren't both wars won within months of engaging thesse nations?
Yes. They were. President Bush declared the "Mission Accomplished" in both cases, and he was right. But then, of course, the fight against the "terrorists" had to continue. Or call them "insurgents," if you will. Both are disingenuous in this context. Listen. There is no war being fought in either location. In both Iraq and Afghanistan the war was won, but the occupations are failing.
What the United States should have learned in Vietnam, but failed to, was to recognize that there was no war being fought, but an occupation. And there lies the fundamental problem. The American public does not want to be party to supporting an occupational, imperial military regime. Also, the military objectives of "occupation" are in direct opposition to "bringing freedom and democracy" to a people. If we allow them freedom, they have the freedom to fight us; they have the freedom to move about and barter in weapons and bombs and to spread hate speech. WWII is often compared to this war. Yet, if this was WWI, we would be putting people in prison camps (where they would NOT be tortured), and bombing villages who resisted American rule. You cannot possibly hope to win the "hearts and minds" of people as an occupational power, you can only break their will to fight back.
This leaves us with two options: 1) the U.S. military is inept and in their arrogance fails to realize this truth; or 2) they full well know it and are trying to experiment with ways to actually win an occupation as "the nice guy." With the collective memories of Vietnam fading, they try again what failed so miserably then. In fact, they may be trying it twice at once, in two different countries. One with NATO power, one mostly with U.S. forces (perhaps one as a control group?.
I certainly do not know what the truth of U.S. military intentions are in either Afghanistan or Iraq. However, what I do know is that our media needs to wake up and stop eating the line they are being fed; the American people likewise need to think for themselves, instead of being l placated by the wrong words. And in this case, the words mean everything. Think about it. Is America really in two wars? Or is it bogged down trying to occupy two foreign nations, without using the resources or methods that are required to actually occupy a nation safely?
[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010