Evolution In Anti-War Rhetoric
Via Instapundit, Senator Webb is quoted as saying:
‘We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation.’”
This seems to be a better way to characterize retreat in Iraq. Emphasizing victory and at this point we are simply occupying the country is much more clever than most of the other rhetoric out there. In this rhetoric leaving Iraq prematurely is not a sign of defeat, but rather an end to occupation. The US did not lose, in fact they are doing the Iraq a favor by giving them free reign over their country. I wonder how prominent this theme becomes on the anti-war side.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I saw a senator being interviewed on the Colbert Report using this rhetoric awhile ago, so it’ll probably spread.
Do you htink it’s more accurate to call the current situation a war or an occupation?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Or neither?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Rosie says were only there to steal their oil.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Thats becuase Rosie knows all.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:47 am
…it’s an occupation…
“Mission Accomplished” means the Iraqi “armed forces” have been defeated…tell me I’m wrong, but I don’t see any tanks with Iraqi flags shooting at us anymore…I don’t hear of batteries of AA targeting our planes anymore…
The “Iraq War” has been over for a while now, the “War on Terror” continues on…
May 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Or, alternately steve, tell us how you’d describe it now.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:29 am
If by occupation one wishes to capture the connoation of imperialism then I would say no. If by occupation one means that our army occupies a foreign nation until that nation can stand on its own, then yes.
We are at war with with Al Qaeda, whatever that means, and the major battle front in that war is taking place in Iraq. Granting this concession, I would be inclined to say we are at war in Iraq.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:31 am
So we’re occupying a war zone. Got it.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Okay?