Is the US at War with Iraq?

[Mr Manifesto]

Do you think the US is currently at war with Iraq? Or is it something else? For a background as to why I'm even asking this question, click here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32153) (bottom of page 1 and page 2 are the relevant bits).

Why not give a reason for your opinon? Why isn't it a war? Or, why is it a war, depending on your answer?

Let's solve this one once and for all. This poll will be forwarded to the White House to ensure they aren't confused either.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think the US is currently at war with Iraq? Or is it something else? For a background as to why I'm even asking this question, click here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32153) (bottom of page 1 and page 2 are the relevant bits).

Why not give a reason for your opinon? Why isn't it a war? Or, why is it a war, depending on your answer?

Let's solve this one once and for all. This poll will be forwarded to the White House to ensure they aren't confused either.

I already gave my reason to you. But I'll repost it as need be later. I really need to head out for the night.

And I knew the poll was going to be slanted. :p You should have added peacekeeping or perhaps peacemaking to the police action as far as other terms. Plus you failed to make it easy for folks and give them the option of "Whatever Troll said is the right answer" haha

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, considering you've had your say on the second post, and I've linked to the original thread where we had this argument in the first place, hopefully my evil bias has been warded. For now. :p

[Otther]

Popular vote, eh?

How about we just say that more people voted for "yes" than "no", but that the US supreme court supports "no" and forces it's opinion on us all?

That'll save us a good amount of time, and it'll be more accurate than anything we come up with.



Seriously though, why are you bothering? Yourself included, anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that this is silly.

[Samus]

Depends on your definition of war. Because the "official" Iraqi regime is one that is allied with the U.S. (and, in fact, created and managed largely by the U.S.), we are not at war with Iraq in the military battle sense. It ceased to be that kind of war after we removed the Heussein regime. At this point, we are an occupying force that is helping to build a new regime (nation building anyone?), but we are not at war with the government of Iraq.

That said, I don't think 'war' and 'peace' are the only two options. We are not fighting the government of the country, but we are fighting insurgent forces within the country, because the government there is not stable. We are not at war with a country, but that country is not at peace. It's the model for the new American battlefield: walk in like we own the place, then suffer daily casualties for years while we try to help a nation that has never seen a non-dictatorship regime function.

There is the nebulous "war on terror", so if you wish to classify insurgent forces as terrorists, then you may. I wouldn't, but I would say we are at war largely with non-state actors; those entities which require military actions but are not encapsulated into a single government.

Clear as mud? It should be, because it is.

[Doubt]

I don't see any option there that I would choose. We are at war in Iraq, not with Iraq.

The majority of the population can not be said to be opposing us or helping us. The
insurgents cannot be said to be doing the will of the people. There is also no group
that is claiming to be the representative of the people opposing us there.

[NoZed Avenger]

This question seems to arise out of Mr. M's re-wording of a point by another poster. Mr. M first brings up "war," and then wants to use a definitional disagreement over the terms that he (and not the original poster) introduced. . . .

Why does it even matter? The original point being responded to by the "war" message, as I understood it, is that eliminating opposition leaders may have saved lives by leading to the surrender and/or capture of large numbers of enemy troops without pitched fighting.

Whether the "war" continued after those surrenders seems to be a completely irrelevant and unconnected semantics quibble.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
There is the nebulous "war on terror", so if you wish to classify insurgent forces as terrorists, then you may. I wouldn't, but I would say we are at war largely with non-state actors; those entities which require military actions but are not encapsulated into a single government.

Clear as mud? It should be, because it is.

Obviously the war with Iraq, meaning the Hussein regime, is over. What continues to occur after that is perhaps better described as the war against terror as the insurgents are targeting and killing Iraqi police as well as U.S. soldiers. Interesting definition of terrorism from the UN:


"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
This question seems to arise out of Mr. M's re-wording of a point by another poster. Mr. M first brings up "war," and then wants to use a definitional disagreement over the terms that he (and not the original poster) introduced. . . .

Why does it even matter? The original point being responded to by the "war" message, as I understood it, is that eliminating opposition leaders may have saved lives by leading to the surrender and/or capture of large numbers of enemy troops without pitched fighting.

Whether the "war" continued after those surrenders seems to be a completely irrelevant and unconnected semantics quibble.

Because the point is, despite the military leaders being 'kept ducking and running', the fight still goes on. So the civilians died for nothing.

[Paladin]

We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Because the point is, despite the military leaders being 'kept ducking and running', the fight still goes on. So the civilians died for nothing.
Just curious Manifesto - where does this sudden interest in the welfare of Iraqi civilians come from? I don't recall any threads where you expressed such concerns pre-GWII, when you-know-who was slaughtering them by the thousands, intentionally.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


I already gave my reason to you. But I'll repost it as need be later. I really need to head out for the night.

And I knew the poll was going to be slanted. :p You should have added peacekeeping or perhaps peacemaking to the police action as far as other terms. Plus you failed to make it easy for folks and give them the option of "Whatever Troll said is the right answer" haha

The peacekeeping option? Now I wonder why he didn't think of that option. Maybe he hasn't studied Newspeak yet.

[a_unique_person]

Dubya has not declared the war to be over. It's for legal/technical reasons, apparently. They don't have to follow due process in legal terms, or anything like that.

[Samus]

a_unique_person: Dubya has not declared the war to be over. It's for legal/technical reasons, apparently. They don't have to follow due process in legal terms, or anything like that. Did the U.S. Congress ever pass a declaration of war? I know they appropriated funds for the president, but I don't remember them actually making this an "official war" -- if that's the case, then there is no need to declare the end of it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Did the U.S. Congress ever pass a declaration of war? I know they appropriated funds for the president, but I don't remember them actually making this an "official war" -- if that's the case, then there is no need to declare the end of it.

This is a subject of much debate on these boards, but the answer is "Yes, they did. A Use of Force Authorization is indistinguishable from a declaration of war."

You can find Senator Joe Biden's explicit explanation of that fact (in reference to the Iraqi Use of Force Act) here (http://biden.senate.gov/~biden/press/release/01/10/2001A24C02.html).

M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

JB: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

Here (http://volokh.blogspot.com/2002_09_08_volokh_archive.html#85444270) are links to the relevant Supreme Court cases.

MattJ

[WildCat]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Here are links to the relevant Supreme Court cases.

MattJ
Are you trying to bait shanek? ;)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by WildCat

Are you trying to bait shanek? ;)

No, I'm not.

I just went looking for our previous discussions on this point so I could link them, and I cannot find them. Does anyone know how long posts are kept here?

Never mind. Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=392236) it is.

I see that my search for Biden didn't work because my use of Biden in that post was always followed by punctuation: "Biden?" and "Biden:" Searching for Biden* worked.

That's dumb.

MattJ

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The peacekeeping option? Now I wonder why he didn't think of that option. Maybe he hasn't studied Newspeak yet.

Or it could be the really obvious reason that you cannot see with all that bias blocking your view. And that would be that he disagrees and is not a neutral, nor merely inquisitive party asking the question. Did you guys share the same social studies teacher?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Because the point is, despite the military leaders being 'kept ducking and running', the fight still goes on. So the civilians died for nothing.

That may be your point, but it in no way answers the original one: the positioin was put forward that a large number of troops may have surrendered because of the action against their leaders. If so, there was a reduction is lives lost on both sides because it avoided a great deal of fighting.

If a portion of those surrenders were caused in whole or part by the tactic being discussed, then less people were/are involved in fighting and it necessarily follows that less people have been killed than if the tactic against enemy leaders had not been used.

Saying that "the fight still goes on" simply ignores the fact that "the" fight would have been completely different without large, wholescale surrenders -- thousands (tens of thousands) of men would be in large scale combat with additional hundreds to thousands dead.

I do not know what portion of those men might have surrendered, anyway -- but your introduction of whether we are still at "war" is a complete red herring.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


That may be your point, but it in no way answers the original one: the positioin was put forward that a large number of troops may have surrendered because of the action against their leaders. If so, there was a reduction is lives lost on both sides because it avoided a great deal of fighting.

If a portion of those surrenders were caused in whole or part by the tactic being discussed, then less people were/are involved in fighting and it necessarily follows that less people have been killed than if the tactic against enemy leaders had not been used.

Saying that "the fight still goes on" simply ignores the fact that "the" fight would have been completely different without large, wholescale surrenders -- thousands (tens of thousands) of men would be in large scale combat with additional hundreds to thousands dead.

I do not know what portion of those men might have surrendered, anyway -- but your introduction of whether we are still at "war" is a complete red herring.

You're suggesting the only reason that the Iraqi forces surrendered was because they didn't have commanding officers. You're forgetting how vastly out-gunned the Iraqi army is, which is why they changed the fight to guerilla warfare instead of open combat.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You're suggesting the only reason that the Iraqi forces surrendered was because they didn't have commanding officers. You're forgetting how vastly out-gunned the Iraqi army is, which is why they changed the fight to guerilla warfare instead of open combat. '


No he's not.

And neither am I.

Try to wrap your mind around the concept of an action that may contribute to victory.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

No he's not.

And neither am I.

Try to wrap your mind around the concept of an action that may contribute to victory.

Contribute to what victory? The forces fighting the coalition have gone to ground. The fighting still continues. There is no victory.

Now might be a time to bring up the chess analogy.

The object of chess is to checkmate. You can be ahead by fifteen pawns, but that advantage is pointless if your opponent checkmates. This is the lesson the US was supposed to learn after Vietnam. They kept body counts during that war, thinking that if the US was taking more pieces than Vietnam, the US was winning. But it didn't work that way. The Vietnam forces had more patience, and understood what war was about better than the US. The US grew tired and gave up. Checkmate.

Similarly, in Iraq, the coalition forces are concentrating too much on the pieces they have taken and have lost sight of the object: to checkmate. They've taken the Queen and a few major pieces, but the remaining pieces are still well and truly in the game. Unless the coalition forces change their strategy and concentrate on checkmate, they may just lose this one like they lost Vietnam.

That's why the issue as to whether or not the US is still at war is not a red herring. That's also why the strategy of 'decapitation' at the cost of civilian casualities is important as well. If you keep leaders 'ducking and running' or kill a few at the cost of making more enemies by way of civilians who want revenge for those they have lost, you aren't getting anywhere. You would be closer to victory if you had the civilians on-side: telling you where the guerillas are hiding, giving information on where weapons caches went after the invasion, things like that. But one of the reasons (besides the fact that American soldiers don't seem to be cut-out to work with the Iraqi people, see here (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5446.htm) for example) is that civilians are being killed for no good reason.


edit: The link contains a lot of cusswords, btw.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Contribute to what victory? The forces fighting the coalition have gone to ground. The fighting still continues. There is no victory.

Now might be a time to bring up the chess analogy.

Thanks for the 'lesson'.

The fighting isn't over. The question remains open: Did the action help more than it hurt?

YOU GET THE FACT THAT WE DISAGREE ON THAT, RIGHT?

You say that it was harmful that we didn't get any iraqi leaders in those strikes.

I agree that it did some harm, but that's not where the argument ends. You have shown an ability to analyze the situation that surpasses what HRW has shown. I'm sure that my explanations of why I believe the strikes were more helpful make sense to you.

Perhaps you can see that I believe that the bulk of the Iraqi people understand that our attempts to cut off the leadership from their armies was an attempt to shorten the primary fighting and thus an attempt to save lives on both sides, both military and civilian. If tens of thousands more Iraqi soldiers had not come home because they dug in in the cities and we bombed the h#ll out of them, then the situation would be far, far, worse.

The rest of what you says basically asserts that the US isn't trying to win Iraqi hearts and minds. I disagree.

Your link seems to claim that the US is lying about how many US troops are dying. Do you believe that to be true? Do you believe it would be possible to do that? I don't, which makes the whole article questionable in my view.

MattJ

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Your link seems to claim that the US is lying about how many US troops are dying. Do you believe that to be true? Do you believe it would be possible to do that? I don't, which makes the whole article questionable in my view.

MattJ

Actually, I don't agree with the bit that says that the US are trying to cover up casualites. I'd say the reporter is goading the US with speculation because he wasn't allowed to cover the scene of the incident. Whatever the reporter thinks, he wasn't able to confirm if US soldiers were killed, so until we hear otherwise, we have to assume they weren't.

The bit I was interested in was the US soldiers saying things like, "What the f*** are you looking at... Do you like what you see, motherf***er?" This is first-hand reporting, which is why I give it more weight than the speculation of US casualites. To me, this is not the action of a force that is able to act diplomatically and win over Iraqi civilians.

Even if this article were to be written off, what is indisputable is the US forces' habit of humiliating Iraqis by charging into their houses and smashing their belongings while searching. There's no call for that sort of thing. It sounds to me like the US forces are out of their depth.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Much as I dislike the politics of the Manifestual One, I checked all four boxes.

We're off to Korea, it's not very far!
It's just a police action, it isn't a war!

Don't call out the Army, don't call out the Navy!
Don't call out the Coast Guard, just call out the corps!

The Marine Corps, that is.

Unlike Korea or Vietnam, we have a real enemy who has attacked us. But we're too *********** to name him.

"War on Terror"? C'mon! OK we've got to whip the bastards, but who exactly are the bastards?

I have a pretty good idea. Why not make it official?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You're suggesting the only reason that the Iraqi forces surrendered was because they didn't have commanding officers.

To mangle Douglas Adams: That is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what I said.

In fact, that is so not what I said that I am at a loss to understand how you could have gotten that message from what I wrote.


N/A

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

I have a pretty good idea. Why not make it official?


Defeat in detail.

Some of our enemies can be defeated without war. Especially if it is not obvious that we accept that they are our enemies.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


That may be your point, but it in no way answers the original one: the positioin was put forward that a large number of troops may have surrendered because of the action against their leaders. If so, there was a reduction is lives lost on both sides because it avoided a great deal of fighting.

You didn't say this?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'd say the reporter is goading the US with speculation because he wasn't allowed to cover the scene of the incident. Whatever the reporter thinks, he wasn't able to confirm if US soldiers were killed, so until we hear otherwise, we have to assume they weren't.

So we are agreed that he's a liar, then?

I don't see the part where he says that it's speculation.

[NoZed Avenger]

No, I didn't say this:

[Mr. M']
You're suggesting the only reason that the Iraqi forces surrendered was because they didn't have commanding officers.

And perhaps a partial quote from me isn't the best if you cut out the rest:

[me]

If a portion of those surrenders were caused in whole or part by the tactic being discussed, then less people were/are involved in fighting and it necessarily follows that less people have been killed than if the tactic against enemy leaders had not been used.

Saying that "the fight still goes on" simply ignores the fact that "the" fight would have been completely different without large, wholescale surrenders -- thousands (tens of thousands) of men would be in large scale combat with additional hundreds to thousands dead.

I do not know what portion of those men might have surrendered, anyway -- but your introduction of whether we are still at "war" is a complete red herring. (emphasis added)

Frankly, I am at a loss to determine who you are actually arguing with, but I will let him or her handle it from here on in, assuming they can take some time off from protecting the fields from crows.

N/A

[schplurg]

I would have selected "No" in the poll, if there were such an option. Funny how there is a "Yes", but the closest thing to "No" is the "No, it's a police action or some other name". Little biased? Sounds like a Fox News poll that I never bothered to respond to.