Why Are We calling
This A "War"?
By Samir Hussain
March 25, 2003
Time has shown us that the words we use heavily influence our perception
of reality. Catch phrases - "war on terror", "liberating
the people of Iraq", "regime change", "spreading
democracy" - continue to be unabashedly promulgated by the spin
doctors in Washington in tacit agreement with the corporate media. While
many may be buying into the jingoistic fervour, there are others who
see through the smokescreen of words, and realise that the intentions
of the American government are far from benevolent. However, the one
word which even dissenters have seemingly acquiesced to using is calling
this a "war" with Iraq. Indeed, perpetuating this farcical
and misleading term is occurring at the detriment of the resistance
movement and any attempt at viewing the current situation through a
realistic and just lens.
Political scientists and
military analysts have surely debated what the pre-requisites are for
calling a particular conflict a "war". However, it would seem
that even those of us not well-versed in politics ought to realise the
gross inaccuracy of calling this a "war" with Iraq. The United
States, as sole superpower in the world, dwarfs Iraq with respect to
its military strength. The United States is known to have a panoply
of weapons of mass destruction (e.g. chemical, biological, and nuclear);
there has still been no concrete evidence to corroborate the allegation
that Iraq possesses these same destructive capacities. It is the American
government that sent over 250,000 troops to the borders of Iraq over
the past few months; the Iraqi government did not send troops to Canada
or Mexico awaiting the signal to invade the United States. While the
hawks in Washington have ordered their troops to begin bombing Iraq,
Hussein and his regime did not initiate an attack, nor did they threaten
to prior to the declaration of this "war" by the United States.
Perhaps most instructive, while the intensity of attacks has increased
over the past few days, the decimation being inflicted upon the Iraqi
people is nothing new; indeed, it has continued unabated through the
UN-imposed sanctions and American- and British-led bombing raids over
the past 12 years. During this time, Iraq has not once attacked the
United States - admittedly because of its inability to do so, rather
than any unwillingness on its part.
World War I and II initially
saw opposing alliances with comparable military and strategic powers
facing off against one another. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, meanwhile,
are illustrative of other "wars" in which the "enemy"
was significantly weaker, and thus did not pose a direct threat to the
United States at the time. In these cases, the potential of "instability"
that would arise from the spread of Communism was ostensibly the threat
to which the United States reacted. However, even this is not a parallel
which can be drawn to the current situation, as the ideology espoused
by Saddam Hussein, although odious in its own right, does not pose a
direct threat to the United States. Instead, it has become fairly clear
that the economic leverage which will be gained through control of Iraq's
oil reserves and the strategic dominance to be secured in the Middle
East by occupying Iraq, provide the impetus for the American "pre-emptive"
strike. Of course, to justify such ignoble intents, the war-mongers
in Washington have done their best to convince the world of the threat
posed by the Hussein regime in Iraq. Surely, there is nothing novel
about using "war" to make the "enemy" a legitimate
threat in the eyes of one's citizens.
To call this a war intuitively
suggests a battle between two foes of some comparability, whose armies
are on opposing sides shooting at one another across a great divide.
The reality is that this is a clash between two psychopathic, violent,
arrogant men who find themselves in very different circumstances with
very different resources at their disposal. Bush possesses half the
world's military hardware and innumerable weapons of mass destruction,
while the United States is indisputably the most influential economic
and political player on the global scene. Meanwhile, claims that Hussein
possesses weapons of mass destruction remain unsubstantiated (although
admittedly possible), while the dispossessed people of Iraq have been
made to suffer as a result of a combination of his policies and the
UN-imposed sanctions over the past 12 years. Consequently, to call this
a war minimises the disparity in power between the two nations involved.
It makes those opposed to the bombardment of Iraq internalise the notion
that these two foes share some degree of equal footing. It undermines
the flagrant injustice implicit in the Bush regime's unilateral drive
to establish an oppressive global hegemony. But perhaps most importantly,
to call this a war does no justice to the people of Iraq who will continue
to pay the price in lives lost, as havoc is wreaked on them with impunity.
Although the argument may
be made that this is a semantic debate, the truth of the matter is that
if we want to begin exposing the budding American empire's lies, we
must eschew their words of subtle indoctrination. We must create our
own vernacular which accurately depicts the reality of what is happening
so that it may be appropriately recorded for posterity's sake. Indeed,
there are innumerable terms and expressions which aptly describe what
is happening in Iraq, but "war" is not one of them. What we
are witnessing is a US-Led Aggression against Iraq to advance an imperialist
agenda. It is an Act of State Terrorism in defiance of international
law and public opinion. It is an Unjustified Bombardment. It is an Invasion
that will end in Occupation. It will be a Massacre.
Samir Hussain is a graduating medical student at McGill University.
He is an independent writer, social justice advocate and a founding
member of the Montreal-based Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement.
He can be reached at [email protected]