Semantic bullshit, it’s a civil war!
Shock, gasp, you-don’t-fucking-say. The New York Times and NBC have just announced that they will now refer to Iraq as a ‘Civil War’. Well that will come as a real surprise the 600 000 odd dead Iraqi’s, I’m sure the dead were thinking it was a frolicking picnic on the banks of the Euphrates!
It’s a war, it’s been a war the second America lied to invade it illegally – the entire sectarian violence and collapse into Civil War is the responsibility of the Americans as the occupying power – and to try and wash their hands of that responsibility is the most intellectually shallow excuse I’ve heard for some time. They should NEVER have invaded Iraq, you reap what you sow.
US media talk of Iraq civil war
In a challenge to the White House, some US media outlets have begun to refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war.
The New York Times is the latest publication to take the decision following the NBC network's highly-publicised move on Monday. The paper's executive editor, Bill Keller, said it is hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. The Bush administration maintains the term civil war is inappropriate.
'War of semantics'
In Washington, a war of semantics has broken out over whether the conflict in Iraq can be called a civil war. Just what is the definition of a civil war, of course, has been the subject of much debate since NBC's decision to defy White House objections and use the phrase. President George Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, has said the Iraqi government does not see it in those terms, while the president himself described the latest attacks as part of an ongoing campaign by al-Qaeda militants. With so many lives being lost on a daily basis in Iraq, it might seem like an esoteric argument that it could have real consequences both for US public opinion and for US policy.
posted by Bomber @ 10:28 am
7 comments
7 Comments:
Ok, here we go, I'll show a bit of ignorance (little bit scary on this blog).
Right, my understanding is that a civil war is when two or more factions within a country decide to fight each other for their beliefs or to take over the rule of the country or whatever.
How then does a country that has been invaded by an external military force be judged to be in 'civil' war - especially when that external force (read America) are still there???
Seriously, I really want to know.
NS
...
Grin - yes you are being very brave NS! I think the term Civil War is being used as an acceptance that the situation in Iraq has collapsed into anarchy, that you have warring factions with the American's on the sidelines, supporting one side or the other in an attempt to 'balance' out the violence in the hope the insurgency will burn itself out rather than focus completly on the American's. What the American's seem to have miscalculated on a mass scale was the hatred of America in the region and that they were always going to be seen as occupiers and that the sectarian nature of Saddam's regime forced the country together. The American's were never prepared for the forces that were released when they invaded Iraq.
Thanks. Aren't they a bunch of wankers...
NS
It aint a civil war cause it isn't being filmed by Ken Burns, besides 'Bush Dismisses Times Table as Too Confusing'
...
Good point Anti - I have been astounded by how the American's are now painting this as an Iraqi failure - when America was warned this exact situation would occur and when they (as the occupying power) are totally responsible for the safety of the country they invaded (illegally I might add).
Now where the hell are all those voices who cheered America on when they invaded Iraq? I have a suspicion that some of the loudest right wing bloggers here were part of that cheer squad - not of course that they would admit it now.
Civil War in Iraq is easy to uderstand.
Iraq possesses substantial resources. Traditionally these have served to benefit an elite. Now all the factions are fighting to be the next elite in the inevitable vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal. Hardly surprising. It has been the case in every similar conflict in history.
They’ll stop fighting after U.S. withdrawal. Just as soon as the next elite emerges. Who knows? It might even be the people that win.
I doubt it. It will be an elite with strong ties to Washington and the cycle of repression will start again.
Anyone know what happened to S.D.M., Gnadmasher et al.? We haven't heard much about the "geo-political", "Jihaadist" "Wahabist"
"Caliphate" nonsense lately.
Brewertroll:
Such a stupid, petty dig, as per usual. If you could point our where I wrote about any of the above, that would be nice and fair, but then again, you are an arse wipe.
Iraq is a civil war because a)it was foolhardy to invade it and remove a nasty but stable govt; b)there were too few occupiers to control the "peace; c) there was a plan in place for the Baathists to retreat into guerrilla war to try and preserve their political position in the subsequent regime; d) Shiia militias similarly prepared, with Iranian assistance; e) there is no political will in the central govt to do anything until the Yanks withdraw; f) jihadis were able to exploit sectarian tension by their terror campaign. The result is a mess that started with the US but which now has much local culpability n the mix.
As far as I can recall neither SDM or myself supported the invasion/occupation in anything we have written, so Brewer, please pull your head out of your arse before you wipe it.
Post a Comment
<< Home