Is the Iraq War really a "War"?

[Phidippides]

We hear about the conflict in Iraq regularly referred to as a "war".  This seems odd, though, and I wonder if it's being called this for political purposes.  It seems to me that the "war" aspect ended as military advancements into hostile areas ended and occupying control of the areas began.  Today Iraq is more of a peacekeeping stage as the transition between governments occurs. 

In World War II the "war" aspect ended in 1945, even though this is not the same time hostile enemy strikes occurred.  As discussed a bit in this thread, Nazi Werewolf Troopers battled on even after Hitler was gone.  The subsequent occupation of Germany, however, was not referred to as a continuation of the war.

So what is it?  Is it correct to still call it the Iraq War?

[DonaldBaker]

I tend to still view it as a war.  My reasoning is that Iraq is but one front in a wider war on terror.  The larger war is still very much hanging in the balance and Iraq is still in a mopping up stage rather than peacekeeping.  There is still organized resistance struggling against our soldiers in Iraq and they are being supported by Iran and Syria.  There are political overtones to the terminology to be sure, but there is evidence both ways.....but I think it more prudent to keep viewing it as a war until Iraq looks more stabilized.

[Stumpfoot]

Though dangerous and violent I see this as an occupation and Like Phid said a peace keeping force while Iraq tries to get back on its feet. I think the war on terror is being fought more on the government level-CIA, FBI, etc, more behind the scenes, though I do realize that there is some front line action in this war in Iraq.

[Phidippides]

I think that wars are more along the lines of military operations with relatively clear fronts and geographically-specified enemies.  The Iraq "War" seems to be called a war in a similar way that the "War on Drugs" was a "war" during the mid-80s through the 90s, though with an enemy which is more directly hostile.  The enemy's role is currently one which attempts to hinder the peaceful transfer of power through surprise tactics that perhaps have high psychological or political influence but little influence from a tactical standpoint.  This seems to correspond more with "terrorist acts" than "acts of war". 

The problem with calling it a "war" is that it conjured up images in far greater scope than what is actually the case.  Then again, I haven't heard my point be brought up in the past, so perhaps I am the only one who things the current usage of the word is off.

[Stumpfoot]

Do you think it does a disservice to those who fought "real" wars, like WW1,WW2 or vietnam?

[skiguy]

This is a good question, Phid. I still call it a war, but it really isn't.  Maybe it would be better to decribe it as a war for freedom - to free the Iraqi people.  The real war is in Afghanistan, but even the same type of nation building is going on there as well.
Stumpfoot, IMO, it is absolutely not a disservice to any veteran no matter what we want to call what's going on in Iraq.

[Phidippides]

Maybe it would be better to decribe it as a war for freedom - to free the Iraqi people.

Although the Iraqi people are already "free" in that they can come and go as they please and they live in a democratic system now.  They are still threatened by terrorist activities, but this could be said for people in Northern Ireland as well, and we don't think of Northern Ireland as being in a "war". 

I guess my point doesn't matter all that much except that when people say "stop the war!" it sounds like it's a matter of aggression, when really it's a matter of security in preparation for a peaceful transition. 

And I don't think that it affects WWI or WWII vets much, but it might affect the public's perception of the current situation some.

[skiguy]

might??

[Phidippides]

might??

I meant that calling the current conflict a "war" might make people associate it with something other than what it is.  For example, calling the 1861 war the "Civil War" or the "War of Northern Aggression" can color one's view of the matter.  Calling euthenasia "death with dignity" or "murder" can also frame the issue in different lights.  Saying there's a "war" in Iraq might not be as loaded as some of these other things I mention, but it could - or "might" - have an unconscious effect on the masses.

[Stumpfoot]

I dont think it's a war in the general defintion of the word. But then again, in these modern times has the definition changed?

[skiguy]

Phid, I was just reacting to your word "might" about the public's perception, which already is negative no matter what it's called.  Whether it's called a war or invasion or occupation or conflict or imperialism (that's my favorite one from the Left :-P), it has conjured up all kinds of negativity.
I see your point now though.   The only reason I refer to it as a war is because it is something that needs to be won.

[DonaldBaker]

Iraq is a theater of a wider war.  It is a "mini-war" in a much larger conflict.  The War on Terror will last a generation or longer. 

[skiguy]

I changed my mind. 
Iraq is the center of a great war. The Global War on Terror.   War was declared against us by Islamo-fascists many years ago. 
So yes, the Iraq War is really a war.

[Stumpfoot]

Iraq is a theater of a wider war.  It is a "mini-war" in a much larger conflict.  The War on Terror will last a generation or longer. 

So a battle within a war.