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.