Iraq war more than a 'conflict'
By Chris Cavagnaro
On Jan. 10, President Bush addressed the nation in a speech outlining the United States' new strategy to end violence in Iraq. In the first few lines of the speech, the president framed the conflict in Iraq as part of a larger conflict, deemed the "global war on terror." Although he includes the conflict in Iraq as part of the war on terror, he never calls the Iraqi conflict a war. Instead, the president continues to label this conflict, which has claimed the lives of over 3,000 American troops and 50,000 Iraqis since March 2003, "sectarian violence" or an "insurgency."
As body counts continue to rise and the conflict rages on with no end in sight, the president's refusal to admit that Iraq is in a state of civil war becomes more and more absurd.
But what makes a conflict a war? The modern conception of what constitutes a state of war has changed substantially over the last decade. Wars are no longer fought by uniformed soldiers on clearly demarcated battlefields between opposing states. With the rise of terrorism and guerilla warfare, wars are fought by intelligence agencies and terrorist organizations on city streets.
After Sept. 11, President Bush introduced the nation to a new concept: the "global war on terror," which he mentioned last Wednesday. He argued that this war would be unlike any other war the United States had ever seen. It would be fought in the shadows against soldiers without uniforms that use terror as their primary weapon. Victory in this war could take many years and would not end with a clear surrender by one side.
Some have questioned whether the war on terror is actually a war. I think it can be fairly characterized as a war, even though it is not a state with soldiers in uniform, because the United States is involved in violent conflict with an organized enemy.
However, if the global war on terror is a war, how can the conflict in Iraq not be considered a war? Gunfire and explosions are everyday occurrences in Baghdad, with Iraqis dying in scores on a daily basis. Although the country is not divided along clear lines, powerful Shi'ite and Sunni militias are making life miserable for the Iraqi security forces and American troops. The death tolls are staggering, and the violence shows no sign of letting up.
President Bush's motives to avoid using the term civil war to label the Iraqi conflict are clear. Bush has already stated that the situation in Iraq is dire. But admitting that an all-out civil war has broken out essentially amounts to a concession that the United States has completely failed in Iraq. Even though the body counts are on the news every day, the situation in Iraq seems less dire when it is called "sectarian violence," rather than a war.
Unfortunately, the most comforting labels are often not the most realistic. We should not turn a blind eye to the reality of the situation in Iraq and let our government's language and rhetoric shape the way we understand current events.
Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, and I hope that the new strategy the president plans to implement will stop it from escalating and will curb the violence. However, I also hope that the president will stop misleading the American people by falsely characterizing a civil war in Iraq as an insurgency because the deaths of 3,000 American soldiers and 50,000 Iraqis in less than three years are clearly the result of more than "sectarian violence."
Chris Cavagnaro is a senior political science major.