Slouching Towards Occupation
Despite the Orwellian assault on language during the past six years, words still matter, as we were fond of saying during the Clinton years. And that they still have power was obvious in the Bush administration's objection to the word "escalation" and its resistance to placing the word "civil" in front of "war."
"War" is obviously a powerful word. It conjures up a lot of basic instincts like survival, patriotism and pride; no one wants to lose a war. It also acts as an off-switch for analysis and skepticism. As long as there's a "war" on, lots of people -- about 30% of this country, as the polls indicate -- will overlook just about anything.
But as far gone as that 30% may seem to be, I'm not ready to concede that they no longer identify with that Reaganesque ideal of a "shining city upon a hill." The image of America as a global agent of "good" still has enormous appeal in this country. I suspect that image served as psychological insulation for many people -- and none more so than that steadfast 30% -- from the crushing reality of Abu Ghraib, torture, and the now manifestly obvious fact that we invaded a country on a false pretense. Whatever happens, vestiges of that image remain and act like a security blanket. When people believe they are part of something that is fundamentally good, denial is exponentially more powerful.
But back to the word "war." We know that victory, as the White House defines it, is that magical day when Iraqis forget centuries of ethnic and religious differences and decide to turn in their weapons and live peacefully. If that doesn't happen and the violence continues, we stay. (And if it does somehow happen this year or five years from now, "maintaining the peace" will then be the justification for our continued presence.) Since there's no realistic definition of "victory" in Iraq, there's no viable scenario for withdrawal. This is the box the administration and its supporters have put us in as a nation. By using desperate hyperbole to define victory, they've created a situation in which either we stay in Iraq or we "withdraw before the job is done" -- because as long as Iraqis fight Iraqis, the job will never be done. And I think the Left's hope for a Democratic successor to Bush is misguided; there are powerful institutional interests that work against ending wars, particularly on the downslope of financial bubbles. In 1968, Nixon won largely because he convinced voters he had a "secret plan" to end Vietnam. Once in office, he came up with lots of reasons for not only continuing the war but widening it.
So, a question: when does a war become an occupation? We have a war that's manifestly unwinnable based on the current definition of victory. After four years, we have more troops than ever on the ground. We know the President will remain intransigent until he leaves office, and even if a Democrat wins in 2008, a meaningful withdrawal is far from certain. We can debate endlessly the meanings of war and occupation. But when public opinion polls of Iraqis consistently show that the majority opposes our presence and approves of attacks on U.S. troops (and even the Saudi royals start speaking in public of the "illegitimate foreign occupation of Iraq") parallels to historical examples of occupation become more pronounced.
This isn't just semantics. It's taken a licking over the past six years, but that "shining city upon a hill" self-image is still powerful. And its corollary is the "America as reluctant warrior" myth; we fight wars only when necessary. But Americans, including that obstinate 30%, do not see themselves as occupiers -- a term completely antithetical to their treasured self-image and psychological security blanket. I think part of the public's dissatisfaction with Iraq is the understanding -- at this point still subtle and mostly subconscious -- that endless war with 160,000 troops in-country is essentially synonymous with occupation. If those trying to change our course in Iraq start replacing "war" with "occupation" and it gets traction in public discourse ("end the occupation" is more powerful than "end the war") the effect might be surprising -- and alarming to a White House that, for all its incompetence, still understands the power of words.
"War" is obviously a powerful word. It conjures up a lot of basic instincts like survival, patriotism and pride; no one wants to lose a war. It also acts as an off-switch for analysis and skepticism. As long as there's a "war" on, lots of people -- about 30% of this country, as the polls indicate -- will overlook just about anything.
But as far gone as that 30% may seem to be, I'm not ready to concede that they no longer identify with that Reaganesque ideal of a "shining city upon a hill." The image of America as a global agent of "good" still has enormous appeal in this country. I suspect that image served as psychological insulation for many people -- and none more so than that steadfast 30% -- from the crushing reality of Abu Ghraib, torture, and the now manifestly obvious fact that we invaded a country on a false pretense. Whatever happens, vestiges of that image remain and act like a security blanket. When people believe they are part of something that is fundamentally good, denial is exponentially more powerful.
But back to the word "war." We know that victory, as the White House defines it, is that magical day when Iraqis forget centuries of ethnic and religious differences and decide to turn in their weapons and live peacefully. If that doesn't happen and the violence continues, we stay. (And if it does somehow happen this year or five years from now, "maintaining the peace" will then be the justification for our continued presence.) Since there's no realistic definition of "victory" in Iraq, there's no viable scenario for withdrawal. This is the box the administration and its supporters have put us in as a nation. By using desperate hyperbole to define victory, they've created a situation in which either we stay in Iraq or we "withdraw before the job is done" -- because as long as Iraqis fight Iraqis, the job will never be done. And I think the Left's hope for a Democratic successor to Bush is misguided; there are powerful institutional interests that work against ending wars, particularly on the downslope of financial bubbles. In 1968, Nixon won largely because he convinced voters he had a "secret plan" to end Vietnam. Once in office, he came up with lots of reasons for not only continuing the war but widening it.
So, a question: when does a war become an occupation? We have a war that's manifestly unwinnable based on the current definition of victory. After four years, we have more troops than ever on the ground. We know the President will remain intransigent until he leaves office, and even if a Democrat wins in 2008, a meaningful withdrawal is far from certain. We can debate endlessly the meanings of war and occupation. But when public opinion polls of Iraqis consistently show that the majority opposes our presence and approves of attacks on U.S. troops (and even the Saudi royals start speaking in public of the "illegitimate foreign occupation of Iraq") parallels to historical examples of occupation become more pronounced.
This isn't just semantics. It's taken a licking over the past six years, but that "shining city upon a hill" self-image is still powerful. And its corollary is the "America as reluctant warrior" myth; we fight wars only when necessary. But Americans, including that obstinate 30%, do not see themselves as occupiers -- a term completely antithetical to their treasured self-image and psychological security blanket. I think part of the public's dissatisfaction with Iraq is the understanding -- at this point still subtle and mostly subconscious -- that endless war with 160,000 troops in-country is essentially synonymous with occupation. If those trying to change our course in Iraq start replacing "war" with "occupation" and it gets traction in public discourse ("end the occupation" is more powerful than "end the war") the effect might be surprising -- and alarming to a White House that, for all its incompetence, still understands the power of words.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Wednesday, March 28, 2007
29 Comments:
Good point. A letter writer to today's L. A. Times, coincidentally, made the same point: semantics matters, and this is an occupation, not a "war."
The "war" was never declared formally. If it had been, it would have been over with the semi-formal "Mission Accomplished" declaration of an end to major hostilities.
The occupation (and the resulting obligations under international law) began the moment parts of Iraqi territory were taken by the US military.
Your proposal ("end the occupation" is more accurate than "end the war") is well taken. One aspect you did not mention: the phrase evokes the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine.
The similarity of these two issues has not escaped Al Qaeda propagandists; reframing the discussion in terms of the realities and responsibilities resulting from occupation goes a long way to explain why "they hate us".
Great post and I couldn't agree more.
I don't know. Given the level of fighting going on, I don't see how anyone can deny that there is a war.
Given the level of fighting going on, I don't see how anyone can deny that there is a war.
"Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C." -- May, 2006
"Many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, uh, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone." - Laura Bush, February 2007
"General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media...I mean that there are neighborhoods safe in Iraq and he does go out into Baghdad and the fact is there has been significant progress and people are stuck in a time warp of three months ago." -- John McCain, March 2007
"British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.
The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods. "
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
If this got a mention in the American press I didnt see it.
If Congress wants to end the war then they should appropriate the small amount of money required to replicate such studies.
simply brilliant writing...more please...
ALOHA !!
Government is only as honest as its money ...
I am of the opinion that the preventative war was over around about the time President Bush landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier just off the coast of California and declared major combat operations complete. May 2003. Since that time the United States has occupied and done a demonstrably pathetic job reconstructing the Iraqi nation.
To term this anything other than a gross occupation with the cost to the U.S. government weighed in the billions and the cost to Iraqi life measured into the many tens of thousands is an affront to language itself. War, victory, sacrifices made in vain, all of it just sloughs into the waste basket of jingoism.
Thank you CR for a very thoughtful post on the subject.
And speaking of words to advance the fantasy, the most recent addition to the lexicon is "surrender". It replaces "withdrawal" or "redeployment", because it foreshadows the term "war", and in no way provokes the idea of "occupation". One would probably not be wrong in assuming that this is based on extensive research by some public relations firm. You will hear it echoed by the white house as well as the conservative punditry often. Until withdrawal is unavoidable, at which time it will be replaced by the term "redeployment" by the administration in order to convince the public that the withdrawal was a conceptually original strategic move.
Yes, words mean something. Coming from Washington they usually mean that your government is trying to mislead you.
From today's Glenn Greenwald (emphasis mine):
But neoconservatism -- which is really what the right-wing pro-Bush movement has become -- doesn't believe in any of that, and Brooks' column demonstrates that they are admitting that more and more explicitly. Instead, it touts a radical and authoritarian nanny-statism that seeks, at its core, to provide feelings of protection, safety, and moralistic clarity -- "security leads to freedom" -- all delivered by political leaders using ever-increasing federal government power and limitless militarism. Whether one believes in that radical and warped vision of the American federal government is, more than any other factor, what now determines one's political orientation.
Cripes are you people negative--two dentists-slash-bloggers over there say things are going swimmingly, so who are you going to believe?
This is not semantics, it is censorship by the mass media. They follow in the footsteps of the gov't. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Whether it is a war or an occupation, get us the hell out of there.
This is not semantics, it is censorship by the mass media. They follow in the footsteps of the gov't. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Whether it is a war or an occupation, get us the hell out of there.
I think about, oh, 30% of the country needs to see The Battle of Algiers. Oh, wait, that involves the French, so it doesn't count, right?
Interesting post. I agree with it somewhat. The funny thing I find talking to the 30 percent is the Orwell like doublespeak. The 30 percent have two opposing views at the same time. On the one hand...we need to take the fight to the enemy and show him no mercy. We must fight fight fight kill kill kill. Show the enemy that resistance is futile and they must subjugate themselves to our rule. Abu Gharib was nothing to complain about. So we got a bit tough with the arabs...no big deal. Because "force is all they understand". On the other hand. We are going to make these savages who only understand force... into model democractic citizens. There will be free markets, equal rights, booze and porn for everybody. The majority of these savages who only understand force... are actually thrilled that we are there and looking forward to booming western style capitalism that is sure to begin blooming any moment...in fact it is already blooming the "liberal" media just refuses to report it...along with the majority population of overjoyed Iraqis. As far as winning this last 30 percent over? Forget about it. They have convinced themselves that it is indeed a success or will be soon. But this is really not too difficult to understand. Fantasy is often more comforting than reality. From the gung ho military soldier's point of view (I was never the gung ho type....most aren't...and have about as much faith in politicians that we do...probably less)if we pull out than all they fought for was pointless. It was a failure. To the gung ho type...especially if they had a friend die...rather than blaming the politician who sent them there...they will blame the US population and particularly anti-war protestors for having a "weak will". They will be blamed by these types of individuals for making their undermining their great effort when victory was just around the corner. Why? Because they made themselves believe they were fighting for something important. To deny yourself that belief...means your effor and sacrifice was a not the nobel cause it was made out to be. The same goes for mothers and fathers of the dead soldiers. Some become very angry and want some sort of revenge on the politicians...Cindy Sheehan. Some are deeply offended by any thought whatsoever that there dead son has been killed for anything less than a great noble cause. And anybody who dares question this...should be if not killed...beaten to a bloody pulp. They...more than anybody have drunken the kool-aid. To believe anything else means having to come to terms with the fact that your child died for arrogant politician's global ambitions.
...As proof...note that their are still people who say that the US won every battle in Vietnam...how we killed piles of Gooks. Victory was just around the corner. We should have pushed on. It doesn't occur to them that hey...we just killed a million people and they are still fighting us. This just might go on forever. The fact that we left and all the disasterous dominoes never fell and that they are making all of our tennis shoes never seems to enter their minds. They never stop to think...hey? why did we need to kill all those Gooks anyways? They don't care...they just want to win the war and think of themselves as noble heroes.
to the Chris Bray idiot. This is the worst form of statistical manipulation there is. What they are doing is taking a small localized crime rate(Washington DC) and comparing that to the crime rate of all of Iraq...including the less volatile Kurdish and Shite regions. If you were to compare Ramadi to Washington DC...your statistics wouldn't look so good. You GOP Shill!!!
nice -- the current situation in Iraq is what victory looks like. It's not about whether we win or lose in Iraq, but instead it's about how much longer do we want to hold onto the spoils of victory (a phrase that seems even more appropriate, now). This is something I've tried to get across to people for awhile now.
Goldhorder,
Dude: I was making fun of the GOP. Someone asked who could deny the obvious, and I showed examples of Republicans denying the obvious by saying stupid things.
Deep breaths, brother.
respectfully, think dear realist takes a brzyzian posture in this piece of his writing... the 'city' on the 'hill' must 'shine' again after well strategised pre-emptive global strikes of american charm...let brzy help sort out the middle east...the russians can be bought and having regard their past, pitied and befriended, the japs are in hand, the indians will never organise...the chinese though, are a different bunch... think they're being guided by some smart boys...when the chinese go to africa, bet the first thing they chat about to governments there are washington's thuggish ways...there has to be more than just building bases america can do...whack the planet with a brutal american charm offensive for starters...and let it smile a bit...
A note to Chris Bray,
You know, I truly appreciate your sarcasm... and I'm sure Goldhorder does, too.
But you must live in a more enlightened part of the world where your examples are taken as the joke that is intended.
Unfortunately, some of us live and work with folks who actually recite such statistics as gospel truth, so please excuse the irritation.
Thanks for the sarcasm, it helps to ease the pain.
(GREAT post, TCR).
What would you call it if a nation can occupy another country and whos soldiers and "contractors" do NOT have to obey that country's laws and also cannot be arrested and tried in their courts?
What would happen if somebody tried to do that to us?
agreed.
I apologize to the Bray guy...grodge is 100 percent accurate. As a veteran myself(1989-1995...first Iraq Crusade) this is a very touchy subject for me. After leaving the service with a new found distrust and skepticism..not only for our politicians but for our role in hisotry...I had a Smedley Butler type awakening. I have come out very openly about what I feel and think about our government. I very openly was against the Iraq war...haven't spoken to many old military friends because my opposition was heretical to them. I have played the Cassandra role here. It sucks. I still debate with the 30 percent...if you don't change their minds, at least you can shout them down...and give the fence sitters something to think about. Our political leaders seem to think an Iran attack is a good option. I believe the only thing stopping it is the complete lack of public support. Even the British sailors incident doesn't seem to be bringing any support for an attack. Thank God.
Re: prosecutor-purgegate
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10349.html
What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?
It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.
Re: the Iraq war in general
(also see this post)
Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.
So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.
Goldhorder,
The ink is still wet on my DD-214. I know exactly what you're saying.
I'm torn, because my reflex is mockery, mockery, and mockery -- somebody runs around in front of you in fright wig and slap shoes, you laugh at it and call it a clown. But the stakes are higher than that, and good people are dying.
So I don't really know what to do with language like "Iraq is stable, except for the daily bombings." I end up just staring blankly, not able to believe that they can say things like that and not feel shame.
Sort of like when they call an occupation a war.
You point is very good one and it's something I've written about pretty extensively myself. Please check it out here and let me know what you think. We seem to have caught on to the same trail.
"...if a nation can occupy another country and whos soldiers and "contractors" do NOT have to obey that country's laws and also cannot be arrested and tried in their courts?
What would happen if somebody tried to do that to us?
If you've been named "Enemy Combatant" this is exactly the situation you'll find yourself in.
No warrant. No review. And these days, even having a U.S. Attorney on the case wouldn't count for much.
Post a Comment
<< Home