...is not, in my view, the flawed case for going to war in Iraq. That would be the second biggest lie. It turns out we were duped--and in fact, still are--by an even greater lie: the notion of a war itself.
The "Iraq War" and "War in Iraq" are phrases that have been repeated endlessly for years by the media, politicians, bloggers, musicians, teachers and taxi drivers across the country. But in reality, "The War in Iraq" stopped being a war on April 9, 2003, following the fall of Baghdad and the formal declaration of the end of Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq. To the extent there ever was going to be a war, it had already been fought and won. Yet the false phraseology of war, thanks to the Bush Administration and the media, has continued to dominate our discourse ever since--with unfortunate consequences for our democracy.
Not only is the War in Iraq based on a lie, but the notion of war itself is a lie. Continue with me below the fold.
To this day, the U.S. occupation and ongoing struggles and political complexities in Iraq have been subsumed into a single, albeit powerful, three-letter word: War.
It may be easy to pull definitional rigmaroles and argue the conditions technically constitute war--but this amounts to more than a stretch. Our ongoing so-called Iraq War is not a war for two very practical reasons: the lack of a consistent, identifiable enemy and the lack of an achievable, straightforward objective.
The Gulf War was a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq designed to purge Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The Vietnam War was a war against Ho Chi Minh's Communists in order to save South Vietnam. The Iraq War of early 2003 was aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein. These wars may not have been just, but at least their classification was.
We often hear of war in the context of certain social issues--the War on Poverty, War on Cancer, or War on AIDS--and the phraseology is legitimate to the extent that, here, war implies a state of social emergency. Furthermore, the 'enemies' are obvious and the goal of significantly reducing these social maladies is achievable. And unlike many of the military conflicts, these particular efforts or 'wars' are inherently noble. We enter shaky territory with the War on Drugs, of course: it mimics an illegal, unconstitutional prohibition; and more significantly, the term "war" is here used as a guise to justify police intrusions and military operations all in the name of the greater good. Here we diverge from the peaceful means of resolving the 'wars' on other social issues, and introduce brute force as a means of resolving the problem.
The ground gets shakier as we consider the War on Terror. The Bush Administration chose to declare war not on a disease or social malady, but on a tactic. It doesn't help, for one, when the enemy/tactic is vague and debatable (note the maxim "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.") And we only perpetuated the vicious cycle of terrorism by responding to this tactic with, well, our own debatable tactics--torture and the occupation of Iraq. The answer to terrorism is not actual war, but instead is the combination of swift, nimble, behind-the-scenes counterterrorism forces with a humble, non-threatening foreign policy that seeks genuine peace through diplomacy.
For the Bush Administration, instead, the response to terrorism--and, later, the War on Terror's supposed central front--became the "War in Iraq". As I said, there had been an actual war, but following April 9, 2003, there was no American "War" in Iraq. There was the American occupation in Iraq that in and of itself triggered a backlash, opening ourselves to attack from home-grown insurgents, securing a new haven for Al Qaeda martyrdom, and fomenting extensive sectarian violence. We had no identifiable enemy and no achievable military objective. We were just there, hoping things would get better.
But the Administration and mainstream media, by falsely framing our occupation as a "war", created a construct in which the war was ours to either win or lose. The branding allowed Republicans to summon anger and hatred directed at the 'traitors' who wanted to "cut and run" (remember that?) or who refused to mention the word 'victory' or who refused to support our troops. We Democrats conveniently and unwittingly fell for the trap: how many 'war protests' did we attend? How often did we jump at the opportunity to oppose the "war in Iraq"? In opposing this 'war', we cornered ourselves into political complacency with losing the war.
Harry Reid was wrong when he said the war was lost. He should have said the war was won in 2003---but we were now idling in the crossfire and losing precious lives as a result. The label of war for the past five years was a lie that served a purpose: a marketing strategy that could buy the Bush Administration time, while politically constraining the opponents of the Iraqi occupation. The gang of self-serving marketers, thankfully now on their way out, always did know how to campaign--but of course, never how to govern, nor conduct coherent foreign policy, nor tell the truth.
The War on Terror was irresponsible. The War in Iraq was an out-and-out lie.