Posted on 11/27/2006 12:39:45 PM PST by dogbyte12
WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war — a decision that put it at odds with the White House and one that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there.
NBC said on the "Today" show that the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war. (MSNBC.com is a joint Microsoft-NBC venture.)
The Bush administration has for months declined to call the violence a civil war — although the U.S. general overseeing the Iraq operation said in August that there was a risk of this — and a White House official on Monday disputed NBC's assessment.
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said while the situation on the ground is serious, neither President Bush nor Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki believe it is a civil war.
Several analysts said NBC's decision was important as the administration would face more pressure to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if the U.S. public comes to view the conflict as a civil war.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I wonder why the MSM *wants* us to lose...even to the point of declaring the war in Iraq a civil war because they know that will be bad PR.
Note: If its a civil war, then that means its between Iraqis and not between us and them...did they realize this?
No American I know ever voted NBC.
This is the epitome of arrogance.
Which just goes to illustrate that whether Iraq is in a state of "civil war" is nothing but semantics. If you define "civil war" to include the stuff going on in Iraq now, then sure, it's a "civil war".
The real question I've always asked at this point is, So what?
For the sake of argument let me grant that it's a "civil war". So what? What conclusion follows from that categorization of Iraq as a "civil war"?
Nothing follows from that categorization, of course, because it's just semantics.
Lebanon was a different, and not analogous, situation. Our troops were there under the UN to "oversee" the withdrawal of the PLO. That is not analogous to the reason our troops are in Iraq, which is to help safeguard Iraq's democratic government at their request.
That said, even by your standards Reagan messed up, because the Lebanese civil war had been going on for several years before he even sent troops there; it's not like our troops were there and then civil war suddenly broke out. Also, it could be argued that withdrawal after the Beirut barracks bombing had some future costs (which includes part of 9/11) by showing us to be a "paper tiger" etc, that your recollection of things doesn't seem to account for.
But regardless, our reason for being in Lebanon was not analogous to that for being in Iraq. We found it not in our interest to remain in Lebanon under fire while achieving or ensuring no positive goal. However, it is in our interest to ensure that Iraq's democratic government stands. So that's a reason for why, even if civil war is what made it necessary to exit Lebanon, "civil war" in Iraq doesn't necessarily mean we should exit Iraq. Not all civil wars are created equal; not all occupations are created equal.
"For the sake of argument let me grant that it's a "civil war". So what?"
I've wondered that as well. OK, NBC, Iraq is in a civil war. So what? They NEVER go past that.
The success of the War has been beyond anyone's dreams and now that the US and the democratically elected government of Iraq in on the verge of victory, the MSM is attempting to defeat our own nation.
The Whitehouse can and SHOULD revoke all NBC press credentials.
The White House is correct. NBC is wrong, and is trying to sell products.
For a Few Dollars More.
The mainstream media unfortunately measures "their" own success by how much controversy and conflict they can manufacture, and the resulting violence they can report on.
With violence and conflict in the world at unprecedented low levels by historical standards, they have to prime the pumps to keep the blood and guts flowing -- and the likes of Chris Mathews on the air.
But is it at odds with reality? What's the big deal about calling it a civil war? I'm missing something?
A civil war would mean we are incapable of controlling the situation over there. That's not inaccurate given current tactics. They should never have handed over "sovereignty" before pacification was achieved. Now we have the problem of being limited in what we can do because we technically have to listen to the Iraqis. I'm not sure how independent the Iraqi government really is but even so we can't unleash the type of merciless strike that would be necessary without compromising appearances.
We need to know "what it is" but this does not depend crucially on making some artificial, arbitrary categorization of civil war v. not civil war. It is what it is. Whether what-it-is qualifies as "civil war" is semantics and should not play a role in what we do.
If the WH had any stones at all they'd give these idiots the Helen Thomas treatment and simply ignore them during the pressers and not let them spin for the Dems any longer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.