Myths of the war in Iraq

As I left school one day I ran all the way home because I wanted to ask grandpa something that was very important. Seeing him a sitting on the porch, a rocking away in his rocking chair I ran up and blurted out:

" Grandpa, my teacher said that the occupation of Iraq was illegal and that the coalition has already lost the war so we should bring the troops home immediately before any more soldiers die for nothing there, is she right?"

Grandpa just looked at me, shook his head and said " No, boy, she is not right. She is just repeating a bunch of myths to promote a political ideology."

Question: Are the coalition forces considered an occupation force?

Answer: No, that is a myth. The coalition forces are not an occupation force. They ceased to be an occupation force as defined politically and militarily once the Iraqi people had an elected government. The coaltion forces are there by permission and request of the Iraqi government. We are now considered as allies with the Iraqi government in the war against the insurgency.

And those who claim to be pro-victory are playing into the hands of the anti-victory group when they use that term.

Question: Is the war in Iraq illegal?

Answer: No, again this is another myth. The War in Iraq is no more illegal or legal than the war in Afghanistan. Congress and only Congress has the power and authority to declare war and it has.

Question: Have the coalition forces lost the war in Iraq as some have said?

Answer: Anyone who declares that the war is already lost is deceiving only himself. The word lost is a past tense verb thus declaring that the war is over and that losing was the outcome of that war. The war is not over yet and still is an ongoing conflict therefore cannot be declared as lost. The word won should not be used yet either for the same reason.

Question: Should those who are against the war in Iraq be called "anti-war"?

Answer: No, this is another self-deception. only those who are against waging any and every war have earned the right to be called "anti-war". If those that call themselves anti-war in regards to Iraq were really anti-war they would also be against the war in Afghanistan but most are not. Once Iraq was invaded the proper terminology is pro-victory or anti-victory to define the sides of the debate. The reason one side refers themselves as be anti-war instead of referring to themselves as being anti-victory is because they do not want to reveal themselves as being disloyal citizens and unpatriotic. They also do not wish to reveal that, in reality, they do not support the troops in their mission.

"Our troops, boy, are trained for one and only one purpose, to fight wars regardless of whether that war be on land, sea, or in the air. And once a war has started losing is not an option as far as that soldier is concerned nor should it be because history declares that there are consequences in losing and those consequences can be devastating. And neither should losing be an option to those that support the troops. Has your question been answered, boy?"

I just smiled as I nodded my head, "thank you, grandpa"

Grandpa just smiled back as he said, "boy, when you see this teacher again ask her on what basis she declares that the war in Iraq is illegal."