When did they stop being called military interventions and go back to being called wars?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Or, the semantics of US aggression.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 06:46 (twenty-three years ago)

when that Halberstam book came out and people went 'hey, wait a minute, we were at war during the nineties come to think of it!'

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 06:55 (twenty-three years ago)

'hey, remember how we had a war on drugs, and now there aren't drugs anymore? it'll be just like that!'

― geeta (geeta), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 06:56 (twenty-three years ago)

geeta i kiss you

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 06:57 (twenty-three years ago)

I have been thinking this as well. I mean , Iraq is not going to have a "war" with us, they are going to get blown up while trying to throw chemicals at us. I mean didn't we invade Panama and get ol' Pineapple-face Noriega and it wasn't "war"? Yet, Korea was not officially a war? What the!? I just hope after Bush turns Bagdad into kibbles n bits he deosn't say " NOW FOR NORTH KOREA!"

― Mike Hanle y (mike), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 07:23 (twenty-three years ago)

under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. "military interventions" don't require a congressional declaration of war.

ergo, the difference in nomenclature. and why Presidents prefer "military interventions" to "wars."

― Tad (llamasfur), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 07:57 (twenty-three years ago)

although most military interventions do end up getting some sort of sanction from congress. Congress signed off on the current mess last fall, thanks to the master strategizer Tom Daschle.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 08:00 (twenty-three years ago)

of the current pack of Democratic nominees (the congressional ones at least) how many signed off on the war last fall? I know Kerrey did and I'm pretty sure Edwards and Lieberman did. It could be interesting in 2004.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 08:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Our last president wasn't a big fan of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

― felicity (felicity), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 08:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Clinton did just bomb people at will

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 08:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Also, when did they start using the now-ubiquitous phrase "weapons of mass destruction"? I only actually remember this appearing less than a year ago but it must've been around before that...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 09:22 (twenty-three years ago)

the phrase appears in the treaty of tlatelolco from 67, but I'm sure it dates back to before that

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 09:36 (twenty-three years ago)

They really mean " Powerful Weapons That Only We Can Have"

― Mike Hanle y (mike), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:50 (twenty-three years ago)

I think 1941 was the last time a proper declaration of war was made by the US Congress. Correct me if I'm wrong. All of the presidents since Eisenhower have done much to undermine Congress's role in military actions abroad.

If you visit Arlington cemetary, they continue to refer to the "Vietnam conflict" and the "Korean conflict."

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 15:55 (twenty-three years ago)

So then let's talk about why this one is being unabashedly called a WAR. If it's termed a war, are American citizens supposed to feel better about it? 'We're having a war on terrorism,' kind of thing, rah. I mean, it was hypocritcal when they weren't called wars, but it's a little scary that no on cares enough to be hypocritical anymore.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 21:38 (twenty-three years ago)

so you're arguing that a lack of hypocrisy is a bad thing?

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 21:40 (twenty-three years ago)

the last Gulf War was called a war also, the war with Afghanistan was called a war; also were they ever called 'military interventions' (martial AA?); 'police action' and the lowkey all-purpose 'conflict' seemed to have been the de rigeur nomenclature.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 21:43 (twenty-three years ago)

I thought the Gulf War was called OPERATION DESERT STORM. Not a bad thing, Blount, merely a scary thing. While the whitewashing was hypocritical it was soothing in its way, in retrospect. Does the administration now want us to be scared? I guess the question I'm asking is how it serves the US government to be so pro-'war' at this moment, meaning the word, not the deed.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 21:49 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the difference here is between Bush (War on Drugs, War on Terrorism) and Clinton (hush hush we're blowing people up).
People who are the antithesis of discretion in the fopo arena vs. people who embody the machiavellian ideal. War is for 'straight-talkers' while military intervention is for 'slick willies'. Whatever that means.

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 21:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Mary - military operations are given names, just as when Clinton bombed (or rather the biggest period of bombing, remember during the impeachment? to show how presidential he was?) it was called OPERATION DESERT FOX. It's not whitewashing, anymore than calling a missile a tomahawk, a plane a tomcat, or a carrier the USS Carl Vinson. Bush got his blank check from Congress on this war last fall so he can feel free to call it a war without having to worry too much about Congress griping about turf. I can guarantee you that if this does come to war there will be an operation name, and you can bet it will be operation desert something or other.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:02 (twenty-three years ago)

didn't see Millars' post, although there is an odd confluence there.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:03 (twenty-three years ago)

"Excuse me honey, but my slick willy would like to perform a military intervention on you"

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Blount, I am trying to get more at the intangible effects of nomenclature. During the Gulf War, I didn't feel like we were *at war*. That is, I don't remember the word war tripping so freely out of Bush Sr.'s mouth. I feel since WW 1 & 2 the US has moved away from "wars" in name, now I feel like we are returning. Bush's attempt to counter the 'holy war'?

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:14 (twenty-three years ago)

A small point: the fight against the Taliban was always explained one front in a "war on terrorism"--not a fight against Afghanistan per se. The conceit (which contained an awful lot of truth) was that the Taliban was a tyranny that controlled only part of the country, over which they had no moral claim anyhow. Thus we could ally themselves with the N. Alliance and not use such nasty words as "invasion."

Didn't Bush Sr. use the word "war" on the evening he announced ODS?

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Mary - did you not have television during the Gulf War?

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Also, has Bush/Cheney used the word "war" in ref. to Iraq yet?

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Bush/Cheney = Bush Prez/Cheney Vice-Prez = now

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I did. Maybe I should reiterate. I don't think during the Gulf War Americans were as scared as they are now. I don't think they were scared at all actually, unless they happened to 1) be fighting in it or 2) know someone fighting in it.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:21 (twenty-three years ago)

One reason these wars might feel more like 'real wars' is that they're actually being fought to conclusions, ie. no more UN style 'let's fight to a stalemate'. The idea that you will fight a war, win a war, and yet still leave the enemy in power has thankfully fallen by the wayside (all it guarantees it that eventually you're gonna have to win the war all over again). Nevertheless if you ask Bush the Elder or any of the other Gulf War figures whether it was a mistake to not take out Saddam the first time they'll STILL say no.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Officially - i.e. at the UN level where the US is still tenuously operating - it's simply being referred to as "serious consequences."

It was seen as major yesterday when the EU meeting produced a document also including the phrase "serious consequences" though opinions differ obv about what the trigger is

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:24 (twenty-three years ago)

and then Powell's all like "there's gonna be consequences! consequences and repercussions!"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Mary - the World Trade Center was still standing during the first Gulf War. At the same time I don't recall nearly as much an air of triumphalism during the first war as their is right now. Noone expected Desert Storm to be as much of a cakewalk as it was. Now the assumption is that this war will be a cakewalk, a dangerous assumption.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:25 (twenty-three years ago)

So is Bush gonna let the Security Council vote on action or is he gonna withdraw it to bypass the veto a la Clinton and Kosovo?

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:26 (twenty-three years ago)

Triumphalism: a lot of that can just be chalked up to the nature of this administration, and many of its major figures having sat on their heels for 10 years waiting for an opportunity to implement the policies they devised as far back as the 1980s.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:27 (twenty-three years ago)

The 100-day "free trial war" period under the War Powers Act and War Powers Resolution is about as effective in ensuring Congressional approval of warfare as the Copyright Act is in protecting musical sound recordings from infringement.

These laws are just not suited to modern technology, unless by design.

― felicity (felicity), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:27 (twenty-three years ago)

James, I live in NYC, and I am offended that you trump out WTC as an excuse. (Offence mitigated some by the rest of your post.)

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:29 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah no one's even bothering to do 3-D renderings of the Republican Guard and stuff! what about Iraq's "4th-largest standing army in the world" and everything? maybe we R being terrified enough already?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:33 (twenty-three years ago)

"By God we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!"

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:36 (twenty-three years ago)

James, I live in NYC, and I am offended that you trump out WTC as an excuse.

Well the sense of fear and foreboding that is accompanying this war is partly due the general sense of fear and foreboding that was no doubt created by the WTC attack and sustained by the Administration's constant warnings of imminent threats, attempts to connect Al Qaeda (who are to be feared no?) with Hussein, etc.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Do not mess with the N. Alliance.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Mary - sorry if the WTC statement came off as glib, but I think the any worry around this war has more to do with fear of terrorist attacks than any fear of Iraq turning into 'another Vietnam'. I think Tracer's 'we're terrified enough already' comment says it better than I can.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Powell says he's totally okay with "blowback" effect of increased terrorist activities as a result of invading Iraq. Whenever I remember that I just have to start thinking about something else or I fear my next exit = bonkersville.

Powell Says War Would Increase Terror Risk

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 22:54 (twenty-three years ago)

i agree with james. the first gulf war was something that happened on tv, in the eyes of most people, something that was far away, not even real. this gulf war is different, not for the actual parameters of the war itself, but that that is tangentially related. ie, this time there are people here. the threat of random people blowing things up, spreading toxic poisons, whatever else. doesnt matter how likely, the threat is here.

this time the danger is right here at home

― gareth (gareth), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 00:23 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.