While We’re At It
So the mullahs at NBC News have issued a fatwah. Henceforth, the war in Iraq will now officially be called a “civil war.”
I can only imagine the oh-so-earnest closed-door meetings of the shirt-sleeved mucky-mucks. Having been stumped by the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, in their infinite wisdom they did nevertheless determine that sectarian killing running at a clip of 40,000 per year (or about a half-million per year in U.S. per capita terms) just might be, um, a civil war.
Reading the above linked-to piece we also get a glimpse into how other news organizations have or have not made the same decision. Pardon me, but it all sounds like an editorial meeting at The Vatican Observer.
I guess I shouldn’t complain about NBC’s decision. Better late than never. So while we are it here are a few other issues that I think these brave news execs ought to start tackling with at least equal resolve:
– What is the proper way to describe our allied governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan? How about… Corrupt Dictatorships?
– What’s the best way to describe ally Perez Musharaf?
– When do you call the “rough treatment” recently approved by Congress what it is, plain old torture?
– Now that we have determined that it’s a civil war we’re now caught in Iraq, what is the most accurate way to describe our policy there? A failure? A fiasco? A quagmire? Doesn’t one follow the other?
P.S. Looks like Kofi Annan is now running slightly behind NBC, according to this report in the WaPo. Buried too deep in this report is a rather shocking factoid, a set of figures that tells you just about everything you need to know about the situation on the ground. The Iraqi Army we’ve been standing up has no more than about 10,000 real combat troops. Muqtada Al-Sadr’s militia, meanwhile, might have as many as 60,000. This makes Pres. Bush’s supposed pressuring of the Iraqi government to shut down the militias rather absurd, no?
November 28th, 2006 at 12:13 am
“The Iraqi Army we’ve been standing up has no more than about 10,000 real combat troops.”
Most of those effective 10,000 Iraqi troops are probably Pesh Merga–i.e., effectively Kurdish troops, loyal first to Kurdistan. So, to offer a better approximation: there is no real Iraqi army. There’s just a bunch of guys who are willing to hold a gun and stand guard duty on their home turf, plus some other guys who are chess pieces for the Kurdish leadership.
Here’s another goodie in the linked WaPo report:
—-
The United States also needs to deal quickly with a serious problem of overcrowded prisons that has led the [Irai] government to free about 2,000 fighters each month to make room for new prisoners, he said. Those released are not scofflaws, he said: “These are the hard-core guys.”
—-
Perhaps, a la Intifada I, a prison term is actually becoming an educational and social networking experience for insurgents, and for those easily recruited.
You think *that’s* a treadmill? How about this: anybody recruited inside is virtually guaranteed a paying job on the outside, with the insurgency. Here’s how it works:
(1) Because internal fuel supplies are so hindered by insurgent attacks, Iraq imports fuel.
(2) About half that fuel goes missing, and is smuggled right back out again.
(3) The proceeds from those smuggling operations go primarily to the insurgency that’s crippling fuel supplies in Iraq.
The insurgency is estimated to be running a financial surplus, between income from smuggling, kidnap ransoms and other external funding sources. Saddam et al. scooped out mountains of cash as they went underground, but the insurgency doesn’t need it anymore. They are in business. And business is good.
I just sat here for 10 minutes, trying to think of a better closing remark than, “God, this is fucked up.” And here’s what I have to say after 10 minutes:
God, is this ever fucked up.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:31 am
New West Notes is still assessing and analyzing, and hence is not yet ready to issue the determination as to Iraq’s current status.
It is definitely a “situation.”
Whether or not it is a “civil war” remains unclear.
For one thing, isn’t a “civil war” a lot simpler than this fucking disaster?
November 28th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Some of the reasoning behind not calling it a civil war has been truly wacky. As one commentator pointed out yesterday on ATC on NPR, one of the arguments being made is that it’s not a civil war because the fighting is not taking place everywhere in the country. he went on to say that by that same [il]logic, the US Civil War was not a civil war because there was no fighting taking place in Maine.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:36 am
“Run, run, it’s a civil war!” What rot. It’s a little light colonial policing with a dash of chronic sectarian violence, is what it is, or ought to be if we had our heads screwed on straight. Let’s not obsess too much as they continue to kill each other as they have for centuries. Meanwhile let’s accumulate our forces and for crying out loud finally call on Iran to surrender or face annhilation. Then we can move on to the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Syrians, etc.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Doc may just be putting us on, but it doesn’t matter, because the lesson of Iraq (and Vietnam, Liberty Daddy) is that American military power is limited despite the testosterone fueled fantasies of Doc and his ilk. Annihilating Iran would be a tough one, are we talking nukes or ground troops? If the latter, how many millions of troops would it take to occupy Iran?
Now back to the real world.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Are you certain that Muqtada Al-Sadr’s militia has the same quality standards as the Iraqi Army?
November 28th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Marc finds it funny that NBC and MSNBC finally call a spade a spade. But that does take some doing. The last few days the minions at FOX (Hannity, O’Reilly et al) have been all over the folks at 30 Rock for this insult to our great and glorious crusade. Why they never tell you what is going right! And besides, O’Reilly assures us that its not a civil war since all the factions are represented in the Government! Oh and no one is wearing blue or grey I guess.
And Roger Alles wonders why his ratings have slipped 35 per cent.. .
November 28th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
On a slightly more serious note this does point up the ultimate flaw in our system. Our form of representative democracy depends on an informed electorate making choices based on the evidence. But the conduit for this information is a media that is, like everything else in this country, in thrall to the “free market” and in that market information is a luxury item. It is better to have endless news about Brittany and K-Fed and Paris Hilton’s latest doings.
Here in California we just had an election in which I doubt if one voter in ten really could tell you the positions of the candidates or the real effects of the ballot measures. And that does not make them stupid. Just ignorant and I think we ought to think long and hard about who is served by that.
And, maybe, Marc, those students of yours ought to really, really, think long and hard about what sort of profession they are getting into.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Well, NBC saying “Civil War” in Iraq is significant because it’s a synonym for failure of the Bush policy. That’s why the Bush administration has fought to hard for network TV not to use “civil war” in reporting about Iraq. When NBC says “Civil War” they mean that Bush has totally failed, and the audience accepts that meaning.
Richard is right that the networks and cable news TV had constantly misinformed the public, but they can ignore reality only so long. NBC is now letting in just a tiny bit of the Iraq reality with “civil war.” So now the U.S. audience has to start processing the idea of Bush defeat in Iraq.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
We are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.
I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Gee, Marc, I know you have to do your curmudgeon act and all, but when someone who’s been disappointing you finally acts with some sort of courage and sense, might it not be entirely out of order to display a little, I don’t know, graciousness?
November 28th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Mork Says:
Gee, Marc, I know you have to do your curmudgeon act and all, but when someone who’s been disappointing you finally acts with some sort of courage and sense, might it not be entirely out of order to display a little, I don’t know, graciousness?
Then it wouldn’t be blogging.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Then again maybe Bush is right and the whole thing is an Al Queda plot to get Sunnis and Shia to fight each other. See, its not a civil war its just “Sectarian Violence.”
Well you say “Sectarian Violence” and I say “Civil War.” Guess I’ll go with George and Ira: “Lets call the whole thing off!”
November 28th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I agree that a “fucking disaster” is worse than a “civil war.”
A civil war seems to give everyone the impression that it was spontaneous. This was instigated by misguided US policy. A civil war takes the blame away from the US.
Start counting all of the people that died during and as a result of Gulf War I. Then add up all of those that died during the 10 years of sanctions and bombing. Then gather together the numbers of those that died during and as the result of Gulf War II. Just think of what the number might be. It is horrifying. I wonder if the total would be more than Saddam.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Doc writes:
—-
“Run, run, it’s a civil war!†What rot. It’s a little light colonial policing with a dash of chronic sectarian violence, is what it is, or ought to be if we had our heads screwed on straight.
—-
I say we should drop Doc into the middle of Sadr City in a pith helmet and khaki shorts, armed with a riding crop, to do “a little light colonial policing”. And take bets on how long he’d live.
And from the other wing, Josh Legere:
—-
A civil war seems to give everyone the impression that it was spontaneous. This was instigated by misguided US policy. A civil war takes the blame away from the US.
—-
You just can’t please everybody, can you? For some, calling it a civil war smacks too much of blaming Bush. For others, it doesn’t blame Bush enough.
I’m reminded of Herb Stein, economic advisor to Gerald Ford, after being told by his boss to not use the word “recession”:
—-
“From now on,” he told a group of economic reporters, “I won’t use the word ‘recession.’ I’ll say ‘banana.’ When I say banana, think ‘recession’. I think we must be wary of the risks of a banana.”
—-
Here’s my idea: let’s call the Iraq situation a “banana peel”. The term has heritage, after all–Leon Trotsky once warned that the Social Democrats (IIRC) were “a banana peel on which we [Bolsheviks] may yet slip.” This usage makes everything easier. We can now proceed to argue about whether we’re on the verge of a banana peel in Iraq, or whether we’re in the process of slipping on it, or whether we fell on our asses, and if so, whether we fell a long time ago or only just recently. In the meantime, we can also try to find the chimp that dropped that banana peel on the sidewalk. For, surely, no intelligent, responsible human being would have done such a thing?
November 28th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Off topic, but did anyone else catch Jimmy Carter on Larry King last night? I’ve heard him speak this week on npr and cbc about his new book, “Peace or Apartheid”, and frankly Im stunned at the level of frankness and honesty he’s expressing. We simply dont get this in the American media. Any thoughts?
November 29th, 2006 at 12:07 am
I agree with Turner that dropping Doc into Iraq is the best medicine for what ails him.
Josh says: “A civil war seems to give everyone the impression that it was spontaneous. This was instigated by misguided US policy. A civil war takes the blame away from the US.”
Actually, I have been surprised at how seldom you hear anyone say that the US is not responsible for Iraqis fighting each other. Most people, even those who supported the war, know much better than that. A good sign that most have woken up to reality.
Again I think the current situation argues for the US to withdraw sooner rather than later. Up to now everyone has said, if we withdraw Iraq will descend into bloody civil war. We have no power to stop that, and are probably fueling it by our presence because we give excuses to both sides who accuse each other of working with the Americans. No US troops, no excuses.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Nothing would be better for this country, right now, than having more rational conservatives (represented here recently only by Grumpy Old Man, if that nom de plume isn’t in fact GM trying on a new persona).
Nothing would be better. And, unfortunately, nothing could be less likely, according to this wonderful piece I found in the American Conservative:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html
If you think Doc is a parody, you might be right. But the sentiments expressed increasingly represent the Specter Haunting Conservatism: bizarre, neo-fascist irrationality.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Very interesting article, thanks for the link.
On civil war: Any coincidence that it’s okay to use this phrase only now that the elections are over?
November 29th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Not that anyone cares, but many (most?) political scientists have categorized Iraq as a civil war since June 2004 – the moment the US interim government transferred sovereignty to an appointed Iraqi government.
From Nick Sambanis in the NYT (July 2006) “Civil wars are defined as armed conflicts between the government of a sovereign state and domestic political groups mounting effective resistance in relatively continuous fighting that causes high numbers of deaths. This broad definition does not always distinguish civil wars from other forms of political violence, so we often use somewhat arbitrary criteria, like different thresholds of annual deaths, to sort out cases. Depending on the criteria used, there have been about 100 to 150 civil wars since 1945. Iraq is clearly one of them.”
Given that Iraq has clearly been suffering from civil war for over two years, it is fair to ask why the media is only now calling a spade a spade.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Interesting article. I particularly liked this bit:
“Let us observe only that the conservative movement’s best argument for staying in Iraq is that jihadists “will be perceived†differently, for “it will be clear†that they are harming Muslims at large. In short, if all goes well, the occupation of Iraq might just produce a useful propaganda victory. War as propaganda: surely this is the thinking of clownish dictators rather than mature analysts. ”
The other half of the perception shift sought by conservatives is the elimination of capitulation and weakness pioneered by Reagan and perfected under Clinton and the induction of strength. The best way to bring about this shift in perception is through tenacity in Iraq. Of course this is blatantly false. The only way to impress other nations and peoples is with success. Slow, crippling failure and the inability to admit it offers no show of strength. Knowing when you’re beat so you can live to fight another day is a virtue in warfare. And if the Iraq War is just a front in the global war on terror, then it’s obviously time to cut our losses and focus on other fronts.
Now I don’t really buy the whole War on Terror paradigm to begin with, but we’d be a lot better off focusing on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestine-Israel conflict.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
free xxx sex clip…
free xxx sex clip…