Do You Know the Diff Between War and Occupation? Neocons do

[AnnInLa]

This is one of the best diaries I have ever read at kos....please go read the whole thing, and maybe your whole idea about this war will be updated:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/14/145538/04

I have made the point many times before that ever since Saddam was quickly deposed and Bush raised the "Mission Accomplished" banner, what we have been conducting in Iraq has been an occupation, not a war. The fundamental difference between a war and an occupation is simple:

In war, your objective is to seize (or defend) territory, kill or capture the enemy, and (hopefully) depose the enemy government.

In an occupation, your objective is to subjugate and manage a foreign population with peace and stability, while building up infrastructure in and/or exploiting the resources of that population.

Similarly, a "war" can end in only one of two ways: victory or defeat (with the occasional stalemate). An occupation, however, can end only in annexation or withdrawal.

snip

Democrats and progressives are not the only victims of this rhetorical disconnect. Authoritarian FReepers and 101st Fighting Keyboardists can't figure out why this hasn't already happened; they believe that liberals are tying the Administration's hands from fighting the "war" heavy-handedly enough.

But the truth is more sinister: Bush has not been fighting a war there. The reason for that, of course, is that what Bush and the NeoCon corporatists want from Iraq is a stable country with an American puppet government that sells its oil cheap to the United States, under the control of American oil companies. Killing the Iraqi people, taking their territory and killing their leaders (war) doesn't serve this purpose--subjugating a foreign population with stability, while exploiting its resources (occupation) does. You don't build 14 permanent bases if you're fighting a war, instead of engaging in an occupation.

Of course, the American people would never support the ongoing decade-long occupation of another country, so the Bushies have had to use the language of war to describe the conflict, leading to much psychological disconnect and confusion.

Please read all of it at:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/14/145538/04

[ClassWarrior]

1. K&R

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Does he mean like the Revolutionary Occupation?

[ClassWarrior]

3. What on earth are you talking about?

:shrug:

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. I mean, an occupation is what you do when the war's over.

Such as the occupation of Germany, after WWII.

This is clearly a war.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Wars have objectives. What's this one's?

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. To defend the country from terrorism.

:spray:

Sorry, it keeps getting funnier every time I hear it.

"In war, your objective is to seize (or defend) territory, kill or capture the enemy, and (hopefully) depose the enemy government."

Well, we lost Anbar and are losing Baghdad, we haven't killed or captured the insurgency, nor deposed their leaders.

Just because a war's unwinnable, doesn't mean it's a war.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Yeah, it does sound ridiculous.

It's an occupation.

Please read this...

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/occupation/view?searchterm=occupation

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. How many U.S. troops got killed...

during the Occupation of Germany, eh?

The only thing the U.S. is occupying is the Green Zone and the Baghdad Airport.

This here's a war.

[ClassWarrior]

10. You didn't read the article now, did you?

:rofl:

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Nope.

I read the stuff that was posted, and figured if the guy's saying Iraq isn't a war then it's probably just a silly semantic argument and isn't worth reading.

But then, since you asked, I went and read the thing. And turned out my instincts were correct.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Well, if it's just semantics...

...why not put aside our arrogant liberal pride and risk being a shade less-right in order to use the one that benefits our cause?

:shrug:

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. calling it an "occupation" instead of a "war"

...is going to benefit our cause?

[ClassWarrior]

16. I guess you didn't read the article.

:rofl:

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. I guess you didn't read the post where I said I read it.

I read it. Just disagreed with it.

[ClassWarrior]

19. The article I posted in #7?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

22. Don't want to spoil your beautiful mind with information?

:evilgrin:

NGU.

[TahitiNut]

12. How many German troops got killed ...

... during the occupation of France? during the occupation of Norway?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. That's actually something I'd like to know about.

How many germans did the french resistance kill?

And did they consider it a war?

[TahitiNut]

20. The "war" between Germany and France was over when the Vichy government signed an armistice.

The "war" between Germany and Norway was over when Vidkun Quisling announced a coup d'etat and capitulated to the German forces. His coup was short-lived, however, when Terboven was installed as Reichskommissar and head of state of Norway, subordinate to Hitler. Quisling was kept in place, subordinate to Terboven, and got his comeuppance in 1945.

The "war" between Germany and other nations wasn't over. The term "war" has a very clear meaning in international law ... and our occupation of Iraq is NOT a "war". Military forces can be killed during an occupation just as they can be killed during a war.

I don't know whether there's any statistical source that cites casualties during the occupation of France. The "French resistance" was not actually any kind of monolithic force and consisted of perhaps three dozen significant domestic organizations actively involved in sabotage, intelligence, and other forms of opposition. I'd guess that the number of German military deaths due to a French resistance force was on the order of several hundred to a couple of thousand. It'd be difficult to tell, for example, who'd get 'credit' for German military deaths at the hands of a French resistance fighter during the D-day invasion at Normandy.

[LanternWaste]

34. The Western allies never recognized Vichy as a legitmate government.

The Western allies never recognized Vichy as a legitmate government. The Free French Forces-- the armed services of the legitimate French government headed by DeGaulle never considered the war over when Vichy capitulated, nor did the other Western Allies.

[LanternWaste]

32. "Roosevelt's Secret War"

I'm currently reading "Roosevelt's Secret War" and (coicidentally) read last night that the total number of French resistance fighters just prior to D-Day was app. 175,000 and that in the month of May ('44) alone, the Germans suffered app. 15,000 casuaties from the Resistance.

The author (citing interviews with ex-resistence fighters) called it an "occupation".

[Warren Stupidity]

25. The occupation of Germany was a successful occupation.

The German occupation of France was an unsuccessful one, met with resistance while they were there and then forcibly evicted by allied forces in 1944.

And we are occupying more that the green zone and the airport. We and the Brits have huge bases all over Iraq, each their own air conditioned internet cafe health club equipped mini green zone from which we sally forth to draw fire from the locals so we can blow the crap out of them. It is an occupation, a failed occupation, after an absurdly one sided short war agains the Iraqi Army.

[LanternWaste]

31. During that same war...

During that same war, Germany occupied many western European counties. It was an occupation despite the fact thay there were numerous instances of uprisings and insurrections.

I don't think an occupation can only be defined by the ending (or continuation) of a war.

[malaise]

9. Superb read

Thanks. K & R

[H2O Man]

18. One of my friends

who is a retired Marine says much the same thing. He says that the invasion was the "war," and that what is happening now is an occupation. The difference isn't so much in the tactics -- clearly, the Iraqis who are opposed to the US presence are using methods associated with urban guerrilla warfare -- it is the goals that are distinct. He says that the Marines that are in Iraq are not there with a clear goal, because Marines are not meant to occupy a hostile zone for extended periods.

[TahitiNut]

23. This is one of the major reasons I reject the comparison to Viet Nam.

Strangely, far too many attempt to implicitly recast Viet Nam as an occupation instead of a war due to the bizarre overarching strategies employed. In effect, Iraq (and Afghanistan) are exactly the reverse ... casting them as wars instead of occupations - for an even more perverted political rationale.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Huh?

In what sense were the French and then the Japanes and then the French again and then the Americans not the occupying force in vietnam?

[TahitiNut]

27. Is that what you got from my post?

Sad. :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Yeah I must have interpreted

"far too many attempt to implicitly recast Viet Nam as an occupation instead of a war " as you stating that the French, Japanese, French, and American occupations of Vietnam were not occupations of Vietnam. I don't know what came over me.

Vietnam was a classic case of an occupation force (actually four separate occupation forces, two of them French) fighting a determined insurgency. Miscasting it as a war against the godless communist hordes from North Vietnam was one of many reason why we never even had a chance of being successful.

[TahitiNut]

29. As always, I must bow to your infallibility in this area.

After all, the uniforms worn by the people who attacked us on February 23, 1969, were meaningless. The "reality on the ground" is, as always, totally worthless in comparison to the framing of the politically enlightened. How silly of me to not obediently defer to your far simpler and pure interpretation.

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Ah they had uniforms!

So is it your claim then that North Vietnam was an invader of the sovereign state of South Vietnam despite the 54 peace treaty which called for only a temporary division of Vietnam pending elections? A treaty that we (although not signatories) willfully violated setting up the Diem regime and keeping it in power until it was inconvenient to do so, as elections called for by the 56 treaty would have resulted in a overwhelming win for the Viet Minh and the government in Hanoi.

"By the middle of 1954, the French realized that they had lost. The US, which by this time was paying most of France's war expenses, was unable to persuade the French to fight on. An international conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss the problems of Indochina. On July 20 and 21, 1954, this conference produced a number of agreements that were supposed to settle the war.

The Geneva Accords stated that Vietnam was to become an independent nation. Elections were to be held in July 1956, under international supervision, to choose a government for Vietnam. During the two-year interval until the elections, the country would be split into two parts; the North and the South. The dividing line chosen, at the seventeenth parallel a little north of the city of Hue, was quite close to the line that had separated the two halves of Vietnam in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but this was purely a coincidence. This line no longer corresponded to any natural division in Vietnamese society, in economy, political structure, religion, or dialect. It was an arbitrary compromise between French proposals for a line further north and Viet Minh proposals for a line further south."

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/EdMoise/viet4.html

I have no clue what 2/23/69 has to do with anything other than it seems you think that your personal experience of the presence of PAVN soldiers in the south proves that this was somehow a war between nations and not an occupation army fighting an insurgency. It doesn't, unless you insist on the south and the north being two separate countries, a view that accomodates the rational of the occupiers for being there, but was never a view held by the vast majority of the people of Vietnam.

[TahitiNut]

33. Ah ... elections. Yes, indeed.

Paris Peace Accords

Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, signed in Paris and entered into force January 17, 1973.

<...>

Chapter IV
THE EXERCISE OF THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO SELF- DETERMINATION

Article 9

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam undertake to respect the following principles for the exercise of the South Vietnamese people's right to self-determination:

(a) The South Vietnamese people's right to self-determination is sacred, inalienable, and shall be respected by all countries.

(b) The South Vietnamese people shall decide themselves the political future of South Viet-Nam through genuinely free and democratic general elections under international supervision.

(c) Foreign countries shall not impose any political tendency or personality on the South Vietnamese people.

<...>
http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/ppa1973.html

Somehow, I must've missed 'em. What was the tally, again? You seem to have some special knowledge of the "view held by the vast majority of the people of Vietnam." Surely, it's a view informed by an election I must've missed.
:shrug:

I take particular note of how my "personal experience" is of absolutely no consequence or merit - not compared to yours, of course. Again, I bow.
:eyes:

[Greeby]

21. Wong, Shrub doesn't want cheap oil to flow

He and Cheney and their Big Oil benefactors want to make sure the oil doesn't flow, urgo jacking up the price and resulting in huge profits

[DemReadingDU]

24. morning kick