An Occupation Force or Ally

I saw grandpa get up from the computer and in anger or frustration, as he calls it, turn the computer off then just sit back down, eyes filled with fire. I knew that this was one of those times to appear to be invisible and just wait until he was ready to talk. I knew that in time he would use me as a sounding board to relief his feelings so I just sat there beside him until he spoke. When ready, his eyes still ablaze, his tone harsh, this is what he had to say,

"I just get sick and tired of hearing the foolishness of people who keep calling the coalition armed forces in Iraq as an occupation force in order to promote their own ideology in regards to the war there. Their continued use of the phrase can only be attributed to their ignorance of the political or military definition of the phrase. If not, then it can only be attributed to the fact they would need to admit they would need to change their viewpoint of the war which they are loathed to do. Either way it is a dishonest and misleading argument.

The definition of the phrase would be an armed force of a country that declared war on another country and defeated that country. Upon victory that armed force would be considered as the de facto government of the people of the defeated country, thus in control of it. For this definition to meet all the criteria of an occupation force it would involve the overthrow of the sitting government. It is with the overthrow of that government that victory may be declared and the victors declared as occupying a country.

In other words it means more than just the fact that an armed force is within the boundaries of another nation. And it means more than the fact that an armed force of another country is within a country and is unpopular with the people of that country. The best way to describe it is to say that the country has lost its sovereignty and no longer can be declared as a self-ruled country.

This can no longer be declared of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Both governments were governments as chosen by the people of their respective countries and not by the government of the victors. If the governments of either country were governments as determined by the victors then yes that country would still be an occupied nation, by definition. And as the occupation force the United States had the right to do that. But, instead, President Bush decided to allow the people of each nation to choose their own leaders.

They are recognized by the world as the legitimate governments of the countries over which they rule. They both are recognized as countries that are sovereign and self-ruled. And as the recognized governments they have the power and authority to speak on behalf of the people as does the government of all nations that are considered as legitimate governments.

It is also recognized that the government, as installed by the people of Iraq, has asked that we remain in Iraq to help in their fight against the insurgency that is trying to overthrow the present government. With that request the coalition forces can no longer be declared as an occupation force by definition. It can only be properly recognized as an ally and partner in the fight against the insurgency. The government could have very easily have demanded that the coalition forces leave the country and we would have been obligated to comply with that demand. That is one of the conditions that we agreed to and recognized by the determination of the U.N. Security Council.

But what gets my goat even more is the fact that the opposing side of the issue permits them to call it an occupation force without challenge. By doing so they are legitimizing the argument presented. It is a term that needs correction immediately if one is to win the debate in regards to this issue."

I just smiled as he finished his tirade and just meekly said, "yes, grandpa." Some how I always seem to feel better after he does this. I don’t know why I do but I do.