Civil war or war amongst civilians?
This is a response to Matt's post about syntax.
When it comes to syntax, I think of issues like the current "civil war v. sectarian violence" debate. Bush's administration argues vehemently that this is not a civil war, while commentary from the other aisle argues that it is. This argument, however, is the problem, not the question it attempts to answer. We've reduced the conflict down to a binary definition: either it's civil war or it's not. What results is people gathering evidence for one side or another, distracted from the real issue: there is fighting in Iraq and we know that the country is no longer stable.
It's hard for me to tell if this side argument is the actual goal of the administration's think tank, but more and more I feel like they know exactly what they're doing when it comes to propaganda. By claiming something as silly as "it's not a civil war, it's just sectarian violence", they've shifted the argument from the important issue: how do we fix what we've screwed up? Clearly this bigger issue implies that the administration has screwed up in the first place, so they'd rather us be on the defensive, trying to define or redefine a word while forgetting that the Bush administration is who caused this violence in the first place.
Another thing that struck me about Iraq is that we went in at all. Consider some of our immediate security threats according to world politics, about five years ago: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. We went into Afghanistan with nearly the full backing of the international community after 9/11, when the world was sympathetic to our struggle against Osama Bin Laden. We then were sidetracked with Iraq because somehow they were related. To muddle that issue, the Bush administration claimed (indirectly) that any explicit connection was moot because Iraq had WMD's, which means there is always the implicit "terrorism" connection.
Compare, though, our reaction to Iran and North Korea. Rather than threaten military action by American troops without UN support, Bush has moved to the diplomacy route this time. Some people will say he's weak, some say he's doing the right thing, and some people will say he's wrong no matter what. That's not for me to argue. I personally wouldn't want our troops going into a country that has such powerful weapons as Iran or North Korea, and I wouldn't have wanted it five years ago when our troops weren't tied up in Iraq. Now think of Iraq five years ago when they were supposedly capable of mass destruction. I'm convinced now that the Bush administration knew full well that there were no WMDs simply because of their resolve to invade this country. Why would we have gone into Iraq if they presented as great a threat to our security as Iran, who scares us into inaction?
Iran and North Korea scare the crap out of me. They have the technology, the willpower, and the manpower to produce some horrible weapons. That's exactly why I don't want troops sent into those countries, and the Bush administration seems to agree. On the other hand, I was never really that worried about Iraq in the first place. Saddam just seemed like Castro: he didn't like us, but ultimately he was powerless to threaten our security. I think it's clear that the Bush administration used mixed evidence to convince the American public Saddam had WMDs, while behind the scenes expecting an easy victory knowing that he didn't. I see that as the only way to explain their seemingly blind determination.
I wonder how many Americans felt that Iraq was a true threat. That uncertainty is exactly why we should not have invaded that country.
When it comes to syntax, I think of issues like the current "civil war v. sectarian violence" debate. Bush's administration argues vehemently that this is not a civil war, while commentary from the other aisle argues that it is. This argument, however, is the problem, not the question it attempts to answer. We've reduced the conflict down to a binary definition: either it's civil war or it's not. What results is people gathering evidence for one side or another, distracted from the real issue: there is fighting in Iraq and we know that the country is no longer stable.
It's hard for me to tell if this side argument is the actual goal of the administration's think tank, but more and more I feel like they know exactly what they're doing when it comes to propaganda. By claiming something as silly as "it's not a civil war, it's just sectarian violence", they've shifted the argument from the important issue: how do we fix what we've screwed up? Clearly this bigger issue implies that the administration has screwed up in the first place, so they'd rather us be on the defensive, trying to define or redefine a word while forgetting that the Bush administration is who caused this violence in the first place.
Another thing that struck me about Iraq is that we went in at all. Consider some of our immediate security threats according to world politics, about five years ago: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. We went into Afghanistan with nearly the full backing of the international community after 9/11, when the world was sympathetic to our struggle against Osama Bin Laden. We then were sidetracked with Iraq because somehow they were related. To muddle that issue, the Bush administration claimed (indirectly) that any explicit connection was moot because Iraq had WMD's, which means there is always the implicit "terrorism" connection.
Compare, though, our reaction to Iran and North Korea. Rather than threaten military action by American troops without UN support, Bush has moved to the diplomacy route this time. Some people will say he's weak, some say he's doing the right thing, and some people will say he's wrong no matter what. That's not for me to argue. I personally wouldn't want our troops going into a country that has such powerful weapons as Iran or North Korea, and I wouldn't have wanted it five years ago when our troops weren't tied up in Iraq. Now think of Iraq five years ago when they were supposedly capable of mass destruction. I'm convinced now that the Bush administration knew full well that there were no WMDs simply because of their resolve to invade this country. Why would we have gone into Iraq if they presented as great a threat to our security as Iran, who scares us into inaction?
Iran and North Korea scare the crap out of me. They have the technology, the willpower, and the manpower to produce some horrible weapons. That's exactly why I don't want troops sent into those countries, and the Bush administration seems to agree. On the other hand, I was never really that worried about Iraq in the first place. Saddam just seemed like Castro: he didn't like us, but ultimately he was powerless to threaten our security. I think it's clear that the Bush administration used mixed evidence to convince the American public Saddam had WMDs, while behind the scenes expecting an easy victory knowing that he didn't. I see that as the only way to explain their seemingly blind determination.
I wonder how many Americans felt that Iraq was a true threat. That uncertainty is exactly why we should not have invaded that country.