This diary is written to criticize a conceptual schema of the progressive movement, specifically, the term "anti-war" as applied to the Iraq conflagration. This is a misuse of the very word "war" that although refuting the Bush policy, actually accepts and builds on his framing of it. While this may seem to be an arcane academic treatise, it has implications for the formation of policy on this issue.
To say one is anti war, assumes that there is a war to be against. There are various types of violence that make use of military resources; insurrection, peace keeping , police action and war. This taxonomy has been developed because each concept has differing conditions and potential outcomes.
Wikipedia summarizes it well
War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war.
To describe someone as anti-war implies there are actions that the United States can take to end the war. This condition did exist in Viet Nam, when the United States withdrawal ended that war. It also made sense prior to March of 2003, when the actions, or rather the prevention of such action, could have prevented war. Withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq will not end the conflagration that is occurring there. While such withdrawal will have the effect of preventing further U.S. casualties and expenditure, it will not end the war; it is not an anti-war position, it is a U.S. withdrawal position.
It was our country, by the edict of the President, but with the approval of the Congress, that made war on the nation of Iraq. While President Bush has been accused of many actions that are beyond his constitutional powers, invading Iraq was not one of them. He was duly authorized to do this by our elected representatives who knew exactly what they were doing.
There are several questions when considering U.S. withdrawal from Iraq: Is it in the interest of the United States, both in the short and long term? Is it in the interest of the people of Iraq, in that it will expedite a resolution of their internecine conflicts? The answers to these questions are independent of each other. There is one other issue that transcends pragmatic analysis. That is the moral question of the obligations of a country that destroyed a functioning, albeit oppressive, government and left chaos in its wake.
This website is defined by its readers' contempt for President Bush. We universally deplore his taking this country to war in Iraq. Condemnation of the President's past action, along with regret that the anti-war movement failed when there was a war to prevent, are powerful emotions. It is this which energizes what we call the anti war movement. The emotion is genuine, but the logic is faulty. And faulty logic makes us weaker.
Our engagement in Iraq is a peacekeeping mission in spite of its not keeping the peace. President Bush was right when on the aircraft carrier he said this was the end of major combat operations in Iraq, meaning against the army of the existing regime. That mission had been accomplished. What he left unsaid is that we were about to embark on something much more tragic, and never-ending. We are now the swat team of a police force that is attempting to prevent even worse conditions in that country.
Our anger at President Bush has distorted our way of looking at this tragedy. He uses the word "war" freely, as in "war on terror," and of course he calls it a war in Iraq. Let's find a way of talking about this that does not build on the self serving illusions of our president. Wars have the potential of being won or lost. There is the hope of the glory of victory at the end of the suffering. In Iraq, there will be no glory, no parades and no heroes. If we need to get out, then so be it. But just as this is not cowardness, as it is not cutting and running, advocating disengagement does not make us heroes.
As Americans, part of a democratic society, we are all complicit in the Iraq tragedy, if only of not being more effective in pursuance of our values. Those who claim the mantle of "anti-war," of pacifism, should lift their banners with humility, and not become players in a melodrama that has come unmoored from reality.