THERE seems to be a lot of confusion in the minds of politicians of all persuasions (including the government) and the commentariat regarding the terminology that best describes our deployment to Iraq in response to IS atrocities.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Is it a “war”?
Is it a “humanitarian mission”?
As a former army officer and Vietnam veteran, let me offer some thoughts.
The Iraq deployment is not a “war”.
We have been at war with militant Islam since at least 9/11, and no amount of pious platitudes from the likes of Christine Milne will alter that.
Our engagement in Iraq now and our previous engagement in Afghanistan are best described as “battles” in that war.
In war, there is only one measure of success - defeat of the enemy.
But a battle can have more limited aims.
Battles can be fought to delay an enemy, to inflict cost and casualties, to force him to alter course.
One can lose a battle and still win the war.
If IS is not destroyed in Iraq - as seems likely given the confusion surrounding the initial response - it will redeploy to Syria.
Another battle will develop there.
General Peter Leahy got it right when he advised that this war will go on for years.
We’d better get used to it.
Peter O’Brien
Catalina
