some thoughts on war and occupation:

We need to change the language of this conflict. I have stopped calling the debacle in Iraq a 'war' and recommitted myself to 'occupation' for several reasons:

1: wars are patriotic. no one wants to lose a war, or be seen as unsupportive of the military in times of war. Military occupations, on the other hand, are flat out unAmerican.

2: there was a war against Iraq: we won it, decisively. Been there, done that, have the tshirt, hung the dictator, won the capital. Good job. there was nothing wrong with planning or executing the war. Even the President told us the war was over.

So let's all stop calling this a war. we aren't fighting for territory, or resources, or for revenge. We aren't even fighting for ideology, we are fighting to maintain the governance status quo. That's not a war, it's an occupation. Like it or not, the US military is the de facto governing structure in Iraq, we hold all the real power, with no accountability in Iraq. So the Iraqis fighting us are not fighting an invading army, they are fighting an occupying army. To make a bad 1980's movie analogy, we are not the Wolverines of Columel, CO, we are the Soviet and Cuban troops occupying the town. Nowhere in our mythology does the American experience celebrate an occupying force crushing the local opposition, quite the opposite, in fact, we celebrate the few who stand up and fight the many. We need to remind people that we are losing a little bit of our soul with every day that passes in Iraq. and we cannot 'pacify' Iraq without giving up the last remnants of the American Dream. It's simply not in our collective nature to do this. the American ideal is not the Maoist "you have to break some eggs to make an omlette" that first comes order and authority and then liberty follows. We don't do that well. the American ideal is that liberty comes from the chaos of the people and opportunity. This is what we are selling out in Iraq every day. We aren't just losing precious men and women in Iraq; we aren't just wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, we are losing our collective soul. Do we really think this si a good trade?

so, shall we start calling bush the occupation preznit?

the invasion was certainly a war.

Don't assume that most Americans appreciate the costs of occupation. Occupation risks sounding like just an ongoing business-as-usual situation: think of the occupation of Germany and Japan, outstandingly successful ventures from the US standpoint. The US does occupy, sometimes effectively.

War, however, involves losses. And it includes losses to your own side. And I fear most Americans are more concerned with that than the injustice of the operation or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. War conjures up visions of Vietnam, occupation doesn't (and South Vietnam was occupied as much as Iraq today - rather more, in fact).

Both terms need to be used: the White House is throwing away soldiers' lives in a futile and criminal war, while Iraqis are dying and seeing their assets looted under a criminal occupation compounded by an invasion-triggered civil war.

that people expect casualties in war. this is another reason that I think changing the language wil help. People can convince themselves that since people die in wars (such a thing being kinda the MO of your average war) that the losses are not too much. But if 5-6 soldiers and marines are dying every day during an occupation? that's just fucked up.