Civil War in Iraq

[PerryChase]

NBC to use `civil war’ to describe Iraq
It’s the first TV network to adopt the term. Bush has fought its use.
By Matea Gold, Times Staff Writer
9:52 PM PST, November 27, 2006

NEW YORK — NBC News said Monday that its reporters and anchors would begin referring to the ongoing sectarian strife in Iraq as a “civil war,” a move that reflects the news media’s use of increasingly stark language to characterize the escalating violence gripping the country.

NBC’s decision, which came after a particularly deadly series of retaliatory attacks in Baghdad, makes it the first television network to officially adopt the term “civil war,” a description the Bush administration has resisted.

The Times was the first major news organization to formally adopt the description when it began to refer to the hostilities as a civil war in October, without public fanfare. No other major media outlet has made the phrase a matter of policy, although it has cropped up in various news reports.

The White House has exerted pressure on the media not to use the term, journalists said, which led to newsroom caution over the issue. NBC’s announcement spotlights a shift in semantics that has quietly taken place on the airwaves and in newsprint as the violence has worsened along with the public’s view of the situation in Iraq.

“Today” co-anchor Matt Lauer explained NBC’s position at the beginning of the morning show, saying news executives had concluded that the current fighting met the definition of a civil war.

LA Times Article

 

————
I guess this is another example of what supporters of the Administration would call liberal media bias.

[Anonymous]

Goddam liberal media! Where do they come up with this trash? I am officially boycotting NBC and will now only listen to Rush and Hannity, those guys are the only legitimate unbiased journalists left.

[bgates]

Perry, thank goodness! I was afraid something had happened to you, since you haven’t been responding to my arguments in other threads. OK, NBC has spoken; so let it be written, so let it be done. What does this terminology mean?

I’d point out that the last time the US Army was involved in a civil war, we won. And do you know, we didn’t have a single European ally with us at the time?

[sdcellar]

Actually, I’m curious (and not a student of history), have there been many civil wars where an outside country has been involved from the outset?

(I do get your commment about our own civil war…)

[bgates]

From the outset? I think the starting point of a civil war is difficult to measure. Tens of thousands of Shia were killed in an uprising against Saddam in 1991, but I don’t think Perry or his military historian friends at NBC consider that relevant. There was outside intervention in the Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, andLebanese Civil War; the Japanese invaded China during the middle of that country’s civil war as well.

BTW, an important distinction between the civil wars in Spain, Russia, China, and America vs what’s happening in Iraq is that the former each had two sides fighting with the objective of gaining control over a sovereign state. It was relatively easier in those situations for foreign powers to identify a side to favor and back it. Iraq is more like Lebanon in that there are lots of smaller factions each too weak to win but well-armed enough to kill a lot of people. It’s not even clear who the sides are in Iraq, much less the relationships between them or their goals. So I question the utility of the phrase ‘civil war’, except to show how brave NBC is to use a term Bush won’t. To the extent it reminds people of the clear-cut Blue vs Gray in our own history, it’s not a helpful description.

Though if NBC intends to remind people that the process of rebuilding civilian government can take lighter toll on American life than our own civil war, I suppose it’s a valuable contrast.

The war in Iraq does give me a much greater appreciation for Robert E Lee, that’s for sure.

[Peace]

Definition of civil war:

dictionary.com

“a war between political factions or regions within the same country.”

Middle East – political factions = religions factions

If it quacks like a duck…

[bgates]

Here are some thing I just don’t get.
I read today that the UN Security Council AP’s term) has said it was the United states that was “intent on destabilizing the situation.”

“Their agents on the ground are terrorists, outlaws and former Baathists,” [Khameini] said.

And that’s strange, because everybody knows the thing to do to clean up Iraq (even better than getting UN support) is to talk to Iran. Yet here’s an important Iranian who sounds like he doesn’t want to be friends with us. In fact, I think what he’s saying might not even be true.

It’s almost as if the UN and Iran don’t really want Iraq to become a peaceful, civil society. Can that be right?

[Peace]

From the kid of a lifer Marine pilot and then an Air America pilot for 7 years during the Vietnam war… just because it sounds unbelievable doesn’t make it untrue.

bgates wrote:
“I’d point out that the last time the US Army was involved in a civil war, we won.”

Which civil war are you talking about bgates?

Vietnam was a civil war and we lost that one.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Iraq is a multicultural society. Isn’t multiculturalism wonderful?

[no_such_reality]

>>Which civil war are you talking about bgates?<< My guess is that would be Bosnia.

[blahblahblah]

Operation Deliberate Force (1995) and Operation Allied Force (1999) were NATO interventions in the former Yugoslavia, not solo US actions. Several European governments as well as the US were involved.

[bgates]

Heh. I was sloppy. I was actually thinking of the American Civil War, though we have been involved in the Korean and Vietnamese (and minimally in Lebanese, Bosnian, and Somali) civil wars since then. Those are all distinct conflicts, so I remain unclear on what is gained (or lost, to be fair) by applying the term to Iraq. But Matt Lauer feels differently, so it must be a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Nah, Peace, the South Vietnamese lost the war, not the U.S.

Actually, the North Vietnamese, after we left, violated the (Paris) peace treaty and took over the south.

We won the war (repelled the North Vietnamese, just as we kicked the North Koreans out of South Korea and kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait) and the South Vietnamese lost the peace.

There’s a difference; learn it.

[barnaby33]

I’d point out that the last time the US Army was involved in a civil war, we won. And do you know, we didn’t have a single European ally with us at the time?

You mean Vietnam?

Josh

[bgates]

Hey Josh,
If you take a moment to read the whole thread, you’ll notice my error on that point has been corrected already. (jg is making a valiant attempt to argue I wasn’t wrong, but I think I was – the argument “we didn’t lose, our ally lost after we left and withdrew support” isn’t convincing to me.) For that matter, your error has been mentioned (we’ve had at least a fleeting involvement in 3 civil wars since Vietnam.)

Peace, I’m not sure what “just because it sounds unbelievable doesn’t make it untrue” is referring to.

[Author]

Posts