Saturday, May 12, 2007

A distinction of note....

A caller on the Randi Rhodes show the other day made the assertion that we need to use the correct language for Iraq. They pointed out that there's a difference between a "war" and an "occupation". We won the "war" against Iraq. Yes, indeed, "Mission Accomplished". Pat ourselves on the back for a well-played football game ... as long as we studiously ignore the Underpants Gnomes' "Step 2" and don't ask what we should do next. That "next" ended up being an occupation. But we're losing the occupation.

There's quite a bit of truth to that.

And in fact, it's basically inevitable that an occupation will be lost (absent genocide of the locals, which has basically been done historically to some effect in some cases you might think of). You can't "win" an occupation. Absent the drastic means above, the best you'll ever do is leave. Why should we even (allow) talk about such, much less insist on the impossible?


At 2:09 PM, Anonymous Gordon Ginsberg said...

Maybe it wasn't even a 'war,' rather: an 'invasion?'

At 3:32 PM, Blogger Arne Langsetmo said...


You have a point. I posted elsewhere that even Korea was a "police action", and not an official war. Yes, what we had was an illegal invasion ... which is what successfully got us to be the occupiers (nee targets).

Thanks for stopping by.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home