
My Encarta Dictionary tells me that the first definition of "occupation" is "1. the job by which somebody earns a living." That makes sense when I think about what the United States is doing in the Middle-East. But wait, we're talking about a military action, right? The traditional military use of the word "occupation" according to Encarta, is "4. MILITARY the invasion and control of a country or area by enemy forces." Hhmmn, there is nothing there about leaving the invaded country...
The order by which Encarta lists the definitions for any given word are supposed to be representative of the commonality of their usage, so I was not surprised when I looked up "invasion" to find that the first definition was perfectly military in its application, "1. a hostile entry by an armed force into a country's territory, especially with the intention of conquering it." Again, there is nothing here about leaving the invaded country. I like this word better for a description of what our country has done in the Middle-East; there is no deception with this word.
Of course our troops in the Middle-East are planning to leave...just as soon as they are done building a few more permanent military bases. Just like in Viet Nam, our presence there will eventually change the culture into a more "American friendly" place to be. The US military never had a plan for "leaving" Iraq, because that is not what an "invasion" is all about.
Let us use words that convey the true meaning of our actions in the Middle-East when we talk about our "enterprises" there. And let us not pretend that we are conducting "police actions" or "occupations"--this is not a "war on terror." We are in the middle of nothing less than World War III! How many nations are involved in this global power struggle? I think they all are...
Please leave your comments below. Especially if you disagree with me!