This Means (Civil) War!

[Doug]

From the website of the journal Editor and Publisher.

Turning Point: Media Starting to Describe Iraq Conflict as 'Civil War'

By Anna Crane

November 27, 2006 12:20 PM ET

NEW YORK For months, the media has been torn over use of the term "civil war" to describe the descent into outright murder and torture in Iraq. Apparently the utter chaos and carnage of the past week has finally convinced some to use "civil war" without apology -- with NBC News and MSNBC joining in today in a major way -- but many still hold back, an E&P survey today shows.

The Los Angeles Times was one of the first newspapers to flatly describe the conflict as a "civil war" -- without the usual qualifiers of "approaching" or "near" -- in the first paragraph of a news report on Saturday. But the main Washington Post story today continued to use "sectarian strife." A widely-published Reuters dispatch today adopted "sectarian conflict" and McClatchy in a report from Baghdad relied on "sectarian violence." Other papers declared that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, but has not gotten there yet, with an Associated Press story calling Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s visit to Iran an effort to prevent "Iraq’s sectarian violence from sliding into an all-out civil war.”

In a bombshell, however, Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning revealed that NBC had studied and perhaps debated the issue anew, and then decided that it will now use "civil war" freely. "For months the White House rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war," he said. "For the most part news organizations like NBC hesitated to characterize it as such. After careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted and what is going on in Iraq can now be characterized as civil war."

Read the rest here.

[Hogeye]

It's about friggin' time!

One might think that people would have figured out after the Somalia debacle that in many places - those with clear tribal or religious factionalism - setting up a central State is simply begging the factions to war over its control. In Somalia, any "president" would be expected to favor his tribe over others; in Iraq any "president" would be expected to favor his sect over others.

Why does Boobus Americanus have so much trouble "getting" it? Perhaps they are so docile after over a century of subservience to a central State that they can't comprehend the notion of self-ownership and freedom. Perhaps for historical reasons, i.e. the war for forced unification (aka War of Northern Aggression, aka the Civil War) they are biased toward centralization and against diversity and secession. It's easier to understand why rulers are biased in favor central government under their thumb (or at least that they can deal with), and against examples of successful secession.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Although I'm glad they've starting using the term unqualified, it's only because Americans don't seem to understand the severity of problem otherwise. Civil wars are between one acting government and one potential government. If the acting government forces win, it's called a civil war. If the potential government forces win, it's called a revolution. What Iraq has become is anarchy, so beloved of Hogeye.

[Hogeye]

Technically, the American Revolution was not a revolution, and the "Civil War" was not a civil war. Both were wars of secession. Both revolutions and civil wars are fought for control (or replacement) of an existing State. The American Revolution was not fought to take over the State headquartered in London. Contrast with the Russian and French revolutions, which were true revolutions. The purpose of the (so called) Civil War was not to take over the State in Washington DC and to control the northern provinces, but to seceed.

Barbara's attempt to redefine "anarchy" contrary to all anarchists everywhere is ... amusing. Then again, maybe she is just using the other non-political definition and misleadingly pretending it applies to political anarchism. Considering that Iraq is occupied by a super-State, and the violence is occuring to gain control of a State, it is ludicrous to call Iraq stateless. Barbara, here's a word for you: anomie. It accurately describes what's happening in Iraq without the danger of equivocation.

[Doug]

Technically, the American Revolution was not a revolution, and the "Civil War" was not a civil war. Both were wars of secession. Both revolutions and civil wars are fought for control (or replacement) of an existing State. The American Revolution was not fought to take over the State headquartered in London.

It WAS fought to take over the state that existed in the Americas controlled by England.

Contrast with the Russian and French revolutions, which were true revolutions. The purpose of the (so called) Civil War was not to take over the State in Washington DC and to control the northern provinces, but to seceed.

The north fought it to take over the state that existed in the Southern states.

[Hogeye]

I could stipulate Doug's claims, and simply point out that, since they were not fighting for control over a single state, neither the American Revolution nor the War of Northern Aggression were revolutions or civil wars. But I think he is just getting obstinate here; I've no doubt he understands the distinction between secession and takeover.

The standard definition of State, attributed to Max Weber, is "a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." If the British State controlled "the state that existed in the Americas" as Doug wrote, then the latter is not truly a State. IOW, the British State had agents in the Americas, and governed territory in the Americas, but the American colonies were not a separate State (or States) from the British State.

[Doug]

From the November 29 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: So all of those things have combined. It's not a civil war as NBC News wants you to think. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with a lot of bad guys going into an area and seizing the opportunity to create death and mayhem. And they're all Muslims, and they're doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans.

see here.

DOUG
Looks like Bill O is in denial big time.

[Hogeye]

Jeez, it's hard to count the idiotic assumptions in that short paragraph!

1) None of those engaging in violence are interested in controlling the Iraq State. ("It's not a civil war.")
2) None of those engaging in violence are local. ("a lot of bad guys going into an area")
3) These people engage in violence for no reason at all but "to create death and mayhem."
4) All Muslims are like that. ("Muslims ... doing what they do.")

Okay - 4 that I see off the bat. Disgusting. Typical flaghumper mentality. Us good, Islamo-fascists bad. Hail the empire.