Politics

Who Are We At War With?

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1942 edition, defines war in the following way: “The state or fact of exerting violence or force against another, now only against a state or other politically organized body; esp., a contest by force between two or more nations or states.”

Given that definition, who are we at war against in Iraq? The Iraqi state? The Sunnis? The Shites? Al-Qaeda? All of the above? We can’t be at war with Iraq and at the same time claim to be engaged there on the premise of helping them to form a democratic state. The Sunnis and Shites are not ’states’ or ‘politically organized bodies’. Al-Qaeda is “an international alliance of militant Sunni jihadist organizations” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) founded and headed by Osama bin Laden who, by current accounts is located somewhere in the tribal area in northern Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

The slogan, “war on terror” is meaningless. Even a war on terrorism doesn’t make sense. Terrorism is a tool, a means to an end. How about a war on terrorists? That is also hard to rationalize, since terrorists don’t constitute a state or a politically organized body. Perhaps a war on Al-Qaeda, a specific group, who uses terrorism as their main tool, makes the most sense. So if we are at war with Al-Qaeda, why are we occupying Iraq, when the headquarters of Al-Qaeda is located in Afghanistan-Pakistan?

There is only one answer that makes logical sense to me: oil. It seems clear that the Iraqi oil reserves are the reason why we are fighting the “War on Terror” in Iraq. That fact, sadly, is never spotlighted by the media, nor is it a focus of debate in the Senate when discussing the occupation (”war”) of Iraq.

Until America comes clean about why we are really engaged in the civil war in Iraq, we cannot even have a meaningful debate about redeploying our troops out of Iraq and deploying them for the purpose of fighting Al-Qaeda.

POST UPDATE (7/20/2007): I didn’t stay up to listen to the entire Iraq war debate in the Senate this past Tuesday night, but it was interesting to see that the topic of Iraq’s vast oil reserves did get mentioned during that debate. Here is what Senator Craig (R-ID) said with regard to Iraq’s oil supply and its relationship to America’s ‘national security’:

But the other consequence, Mr. President, that we’ve not talked about is what happens when 54 percent of the world’s oil supply goes to risk with a collapse of the region. And this is a reality check that we only talk about in hushed terms, because we don’t like to talk about our dependency on a part of the world that is so unstable…

What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.

The facts are, Mr. President, that the war we are fighting in Iraq has serious and real national security implications and we cannot prejudge our best and brightest military commanders by playing politics with their duties and best judgement. We should not preempt General Petraeus’s progress report coming in September and I hope that the Senate will go on record today as saying we are not a body of generals, we do not know best how to conduct a war and determine how many troops it will take to secure Iraq. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting down Levin-Reed.

© 2007 Life is an Ongoing Process.