Published by LT
on Thursday, May 1 at 4:44 AM. 
In my free time in Jordan, I work for an NGO here. The office that I work in deals specifically with Iraq and because of that more than half of our staff are Iraqi. My boss and the accountant are actually the only non-Iraqi staff members, and as they work in a separate room than the rest of us, I end up sitting in a room with just Iraqis. Being in an office with Iraqis has really changed my perspective on a lot of things this year. Additionally, working closely with them has the added benefit of having native Arabic speakers around whenever I need help with my homework.
It was a few days ago when I was receiving homework help that an interesting thought occurred to me. The Iraqi who was helping me to understand a concept in Arabic provided me with a sample sentence, and in the sentence he used the phrase, 'the war on Iraq'. The wording caught my attention at the time, and because I was still thinking about it the next day, I decided to ask him why he had used the word 'on'. He said that he honestly didn't know why he had used the word on; it was just what everyone said.
Whenever I or any other American I know refers to the Iraq war, we often use the phrase, 'the war in Iraq.' Though we may not realize what we are saying, our choice of words provides a little insight into our perspectives on the war. By choosing to say 'in' we are unconsciously distancing ourselves from the war. We are implying that there is a war going on in Iraq, but this war is something internal, something that really doesn't affect us, perhaps a civil war or any war involving parties of which we are not one, or at least not an important one.
The phrase 'the war on Iraq' indicates that there is a foreigner in Iraq, a party who is the reason there is war. And it is not just individuals here who make this distinction. In fact, if any Arab news source ever uses the phrase 'the war in Iraq', it will ALWAYS be followed by something like, 'of which the American and British are the main foreign troops…' But I have never heard anyone here use the words 'the war in Iraq' like Americans do.
I'm not saying that the American use of 'the war in Iraq' is wrong, but it is interesting to note how the language that both sides choose to use reflects how little or how much the war affects us.
(Another interesting side note about word choice is the Arabic translation of U.N. resolution 242. There are two different Arabic translations of U.N. resolution 242. In both versions the same word is used for 'lands', but the voweling on the word 'lands' is different. In the 'Israeli' Arabic version, the voweling gives the word 'lands' a general meaning, as if it could be any land anywhere. The voweling of 'lands' in the 'Arab' Arabic version indicates a very specific land, land that is important and is possessed by someone.)
Well,
I'd take "on" to mean we are at war with or against Iraq, which we aren't. Technically, you could say that the war ON Iraq means it is simply taking place on Iraqi soil. The war is taking place IN Iraq against what many consider an amorphous blob of hostiles.
When I was in Asia last year, there were many little nuances of translation that were quite interesting to ponder. Very interesting post.
"War is peace" "Freedom is slavery" The "Department of Defense" conducts wars on foreign soil. We use all sorts of framing techniques to send a message.
Great post LT. I'm very glad that our Middle East Bureau is reporting on stories that no one has covered (at least to my limited knowledge). I hope this get some attention in the blogosphere, it is deserving.
Jay, what percentage of the people we are killing and the things we are breaking are Iraqi?
My guess is that it's quite high. It was a pre-emptive war and it was most certainly on Iraq. I plan on using the phrase henceforth, as a matter of fact.
Tom
Jay, what percentage of the people we are killing and the things we are breaking are Iraqi?
Tom,
So you don't believe that a significant portion of the insurgency is made up of non-Iraqis?
I don't believe that the majority of the people we are killing and the things were are destroying are non-Iraqi.
Jay, any time you are in an insurgency, you have to do it in a manner in which you kill insurgents at a rate greater than new ones are created by your policies. Certainly the Sadr army is made up of Iraqis, and we've been battling them for most of last month.
Notice that conservative pundits are no longer touting the fact that "the surge is working"? Fighting's the heaviest it's been in years.
Tom Trumpinski
Tom,
Seriously man, where do you get your news? Every conservative thing I watch / listen to is still praising the surge. Obviously fighting is ongoing, but that's because the surge forces are moving into new areas not because the surge failed. If surge talk isn't as prevalent as it once was, it's not because the surge is failing but because the focus of the media right now is on the economy and the Dems. If the surge was failing all we would hear about - from Hill, Barack, and their cronies in the MSM - is the Iraq. But its working so we get to hear about the economy and gas prices. Don't worry, once the race shifts to Rep vs Dem the surge talk will resurface. Of course it will never be as intense as it once was, but that's only signifies the Dems and the MSM's reluctance to focus on something positive the Reps have done.
Highest American casualties in months, Kofi. By any measure, after five years, they should be minimal or decreasing.
It's now the fourth longest war in US history.
None of your points have any bearing on whether or not the surge is currently "working."
What was the most important avowed purposes of the surge?
1) To give the Iraqi government breathing space to establish themselves in a secure position to take over running the country.
2) To use the extra troops to break the back of the insurgency and wipe out AQI.
Hsve these been met? General Petraeus, when he testified before Congress, said no not only to those, but to the less important benchmarks that were set.
This is why the US troops are not being reduced, as planned. I figure Petraeus ought to know.
Tom
The surge is working. Sure, it has not worked, but its a function over time. The fact is before the surge everyone was talking about how we were doomed to absolute failure; that we would have to withdraw in retreat and leave the factions and neighboring states to pick up the pieces. Now even the Dems are talking about long term success. Notice that liberal pundits are no longer touting the fact that "the war is lost"?
Indeed, Kofi, you've hit the nail on the head: the surge is a success because it has provided cover under which war proponents can hide while still having no clear overall strategic objective in sight.
Who the hell cares what people are "talking" about?
Fact is, whether anyone talks about it or not, the war is just as lost as it was a year ago, maybe worse.
Tom
Who the hell cares what people are "talking" about?
Fact is, whether anyone talks about it or not, the war is just as lost as it was a year ago, maybe worse.
Tom
The issue of who was talking about what is what spawned this conversation:
I don't believe that the majority of the people we are killing and the things were are destroying are non-Iraqi.
Jay, any time you are in an insurgency, you have to do it in a manner in which you kill insurgents at a rate greater than new ones are created by your policies. Certainly the Sadr army is made up of Iraqis, and we've been battling them for most of last month.
Notice that conservative pundits are no longer touting the fact that "the surge is working"? Fighting's the heaviest it's been in years.
Tom Trumpinski
You still think the war was a catastrophic mistake and completely unsalvageable. That's fine. I think we agreed to disagree about that years ago. And now we apparently both agree that "what people are talking about" is not an accurate way to judge the success or failure of the war or the surge.