there is no war in iraq

I am not against the War in Iraq, because it is not happening. Shocking words perhaps, but let’s not forget that the actual War part of the War in Iraq ended on the first day of May, 2003 when Bush landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of California. Since then, America has been executing operations “In Iraq” in an occupational capacity, as it were.

I also do not really care about the 2,838 dead American soldiers (up to November 10, as confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense) whose ashes are being sprinkled throughout our cultural landscape. First it was with every newscast that we got used to the saying along the lines of “2,838 American soldiers killed in Iraq so far..." Since then, dramas and comedies have taken up the cause, talking about “our heroic dead”. Talk shows tell us that the war is going badly because the number of American soldiers who have been killed is on the rise. Furthermore, Democrats have been using the tragedy of “our heroic dead” as a means to gain votes and win America’s favour away from the Republican party. I don’t want to suggest that I wish soldiers who die in war their deaths, but focussing moral outrage on the tragedy of American deaths is akin to giving honour to the invasion itself.

The main reason that I disbelieve in an Iraq War is the fact that there is no way to bring the conceptual and logistical focus of the hostilities that the American occupation of Iraq to the American populace in a direct manner. Soon after 9/11, American voters needed to be convinced that their country had found itself “in a time of war”, and thus should follow their leadership without question. That the American government successfully convinced Americans that they were at war when not a single shot was fired on U.S. soil has proven to be one of the most successful propaganda campaigns since Big Oil hired a few “climatologists” to show how normal our climate is these days.

My father was born in England in 1941 and entered life knowing that his country was at war. Enemy planes flew over his head and dropped bombs throughout the southern part of the country. Schools, factories, and offices held bomb drills because they were actually being bombed. Many families had learned the extent to which war would affect their lives, and exactly why their soldiers were losing their lives to defend the country. Step forward two generations, and we witness an entirely different situation. Despite the fact that not a single Iraqi military unit ever came close to American soil, that country was demonized to the point where most Americans seemed to actually believe that it posed a very grave and immediate threat to their existence.

In fact, it turns out that the direct opposite was true. Iraqis live daily with hostile planes flying overhead, with daily bombings, with soldiers who break into their homes for random patrols, and with military prisons full of “non-combatants” who are tortured for information that they quite likely do not possess. It is they who are truly living “in a time of war”. We are not in fact hearing their stories or documenting their lives – or even counting the number of deaths that have occurred since the invasion began. Consequently, for those of us in the West the war is not really happening; there is no zero degree of immanence with warfare.

We need to legitimately talk about the fact that deaths within the Iraqi population are not being tracked. We need to talk about the studies on Iraqi casualties which have been released by various organizations which suggest that the death toll for the Iraq occupation ranges from about 75,000 to over 600,000. When the number of dead in Darfur reached 400,000 we began to talk of genocide. So what then of Iraq? Until we can begin to honour the deaths of the untold number of Iraqi dead, I do not want to hear another word about the tragedy of 3,000 dead American soldiers. Frankly, complaining about American casualties during an American occupation is akin to complaining about running out of bullets while simultaneously firing the gun.

We hear things like the U.S. infusing a half-billion dollars into Iraq’s healthcare system and we are to assume that the American government is itself generously offering its funds for reconstruction efforts. Corporations such as Bechtel (who recently announced that they will be leaving Iraq), Halliburton, Dyncorp, and Research Triangle Institute, have greatly expanded their portfolios:

✓ Running the Los Alamos National Laboratory
✓ Gas and oil field development in Russia and elsewhere
✓ Products and services for the oil industry
✓ Drug discovery and development
✓ Reaping billions from the untold suffering of the Iraqi people.


Since 2003, America has attempted to expand its economy using another country’s seeming instability as a pretext. Industry analysts have repeatedly stated that America’s economy is tied to its energy resources. Given that these resources are in decline as compared to demand, you can begin to see that future growth is not possible under the traditional economic model. An infusion of resources is required, and thus we come to the Invasion of Iraq. All of the so-called reconstruction efforts have surrounded Iraq’s oil infrastructure, which is now controlled by American corporate interests.

The recent congressional victories by the Democrats will hopefully end any Neo-Con hopes to further expand into Iran. This is a shame, really, as I personally wanted to see the Greatest Hits of the Twentieth Century, as performed by the American government in a single decade. We had covered the Gulf War and the preliminaries of Vietnam (Iraq being Cambodia to Iran’s Vietnam). With a return to the Korean war and the second Great War of human civilization, my hopes were rested on one man: George W. Bush. Sadly sir, you let me down last Tuesday. Hang your head in shame. Your Risk-like attempt to take over the world is being delayed.

I find that it is not simply my cynicism that suggests that the Democrats will in fact do little to change the situation in Iraq. Surely the John Kerry-era talk about bolstering the soldiers’ armour remains key to Democrat strategy two years later. If the Dems ably demonstrate that they support the troops more than the Republicans, then they have a chance at the Presidency and their own Thermidor. The GOP must be hoping that the occupation turns considerably against American interests. Catastrophic violence in Iraq is exactly what will allow a Republican president in 2008.

Let me be clear about one thing: if the Democrats don’t force the Bush White House to bring the soldiers home by Christmas, then they aren’t fulfilling their potential. Forget the bullshit about how staying the course in Iraq will keep the country from the horrors of sectarian violence. The line of thought that includes the notion that peace will be found in Iraq only by means of the U.S. military is exactly what led to the invasion in the first place.

Hopefully, the Democratic mantra reflects a newfound sense of conviction and determination. If they really and truly wish to present America as distinct from the unruly, arrogant philistine that it has demonstrated itself to be ever since the right-wing coup in 2000, they can begin with the following: kindly and immediately get the hell out of Iraq. Furthermore, maybe last week’s Democratic victory will transform the party from one of excuses into one of material reality. This past weekend was one of the most bloody since the occupation began; Mrs. Nancy Pilosi, the ball is in your court.