I can understand why the Bush Administration resists calling the Iraq mess a civil war; after all, it's already a very unpopular endeavor, and if it were labeled a civil war there might very well be a whole new group of Americans who'd suddenly say "Why should our soldiers be in the middle of one?"
But really, all this self-aggrandizement on the part of NBC for making a semantic decision is silly, as is the discussion on the part of other media outlets as to why they are/are not following NBC's lead.
William Arkin at WaPo declares: "Semantically, and by the military's official definition, what is happening in Iraq is nowhere near a civil war."
He thens asks the more sensible question:
But does it make a difference? Whether Iraq has or hasn't descended into civil war, nothing has changed from last week or last month. It would be a shame if we were blind to that stark reality and instead indulged Washington and New York's time-wasting debate.
Too right. "A rose by any other name," and all that. It's a freakin' mess brought to us by the blind hubris and stupidity of the current denizens of the White House and their friends/enablers, so whether it's the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, World War 1 or The Great War, it's still a disaster.
Posted by Linkmeister at November 28, 2006 11:34 AM | TrackBackCouldn't agree more. Danziger's cartoon captures the essence in the NYT this morning: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/jd/
OT, my apologies: Greg Rucka's not a Brit.
Posted by: terry in AZ at November 28, 2006 02:08 PMYup.
Doesn't matter at this point what it's called. Fubar is still fubar.
Posted by: Scott at November 29, 2006 04:34 AMI respectfully disagree. Yes, it's only semantics. But words convey meaning that sometimes get obscured in the rush. Allowing the Bush Administration to continue describing it as some sort of good vs. evil fight for democracy and/or American safety obscures the true nature and roots of the conflict, and obscures the reality of the Bush Admin's culpability in accelrating the problems there.
Worst of all, it allows them to continue proclaiming that the US can "stay the course" or otherwise affect what's happening there... allows them to propagandize to the American people that the Iraq conflict still is about America, our national resolve, or our national security. As long as it's not called what it is, it's giving the Admin an excuse to remain on its disasterous track there and to continue sending our military to harm's way and in some cases deaths.
Calling it what it is -- a civil war -- forces the ugly truth and reality even further into view: even if you believe that at one time we did, the United States no longer has any business being involved in Iraq. (Halliburton has plenty of business being involved there, but that's another story.)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 30, 2006 03:57 AMMudge, you're misunderstanding me. I agree it should be called a civil war; what I disagree with is the endless handwringing and discussion about whether it should be called that.
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 30, 2006 07:25 AMOops. Not the first time I've ever missed someone's point. ;-)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 30, 2006 08:42 AMNor I, pal, nor I. ;)
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 30, 2006 08:52 AM