Of Course It's a Civil War [Iraq - Krauthammer]

The Washington Post ^ | March 24, 2006 | Charles Krauthammer

[Cboldt]

Today's big debate over Iraq seems to be: Is there or is there not a civil war? ...

This whole debate about civil war is surreal. What is the insurgency if not a war supported by one (minority) part of Iraqi society fighting to prevent the birth of the new Iraqi state supported by another (majority) part of Iraqi society?

By definition that is civil war, and there's nothing new about it. ...

This is doable. That is not to say it will be done. It is to say that those who have decided that because of "civil war" it cannot be done have been unreasonably panicked by something that has been with us all along.

[Cboldt]

Good piece by Dr. Krauthammer. I like when discussions look behind the labels and talk about the substance. In this case, the label is the incendiary "civil war."

I hope his implied suggestion to look deeper (and talk deeper) than the label catches on with the WH. OTherwise, all that's happening is argument over the definition of the label - one of my very pet peeves.

[wizardoz]

Hey, I love this guy.... but by this definition, the students rioting in France and burning cars to prevent a change in labor laws also constitutes a "civil war."

[strange1]

William F. Buckley Jr., who after Samarra declared that it is time for "the acknowledgment of defeat."

Whatever Bill, **rolls eyes** now STFU.

[stuartcr]

I can't figure out why 'civil war' is so incendiary.

[nuconvert]

Bump

[buck61]

I always, within 95% of the time agree with Dr. Krauthammer.
He is a very intelligent person and can back up the statements he makes.
He is right about the civil war issue in Iraq, he describes it as well as it can be described, whether we agree or not.
I am not against the war, and Dr. Krauthammer puts an intellectual perspective on the subject that is hard to deny for many of us.

[mass55th]

Saddam waged Civil War for years on the people of Iraq. It's just that the mainstream media here refused to report it as that.

[rightinthemiddle]

Because our own Civil War was so costly.

[stuartcr]

Does naming something, change what is happening?

[rightinthemiddle]

I can't figure out why 'civil war' is so incendiary.

-----

Because our own Civil War was so costly.

______


Nope. You asked why 'civil war' is so incendiary. I assumed you meant here in the U.S.

The media and Dims shriek "Civil War" and the only thing people know about civil war is the 20 minutes they spent studying the American Civil War in Politically Correct Socio-Human Revisionist Studies back in 7th grade.

The MSM is full of shallow idiots, the Dims are opportunitsts and the Average Joe just doesn't know.

[JennysCool]

Does naming something, change what is happening?

I'm sure that's what the media is fervently hoping for.

[stuartcr]

I meant why is it so incendiary calling what is happening in Iraq, a civil war?

[stuartcr]

Why?

[JennysCool]

I'm sure the mainstream media would LOVE a real, live civil war in Iraq -- gives them ratings and another chance to Bush-bash.

[kellynla]

BTTT

[rightinthemiddle]

I think it's relative...

[School of Rational Thought]

Then Terry Nichols then a civil war veteran.

Here in Detroit, we had civil war in '68, part of the overall civil war in the 60s.

[johnny7]

You live in America?

[surely_you_jest]

Does naming something, change what is happening?

In the sense that successfully affixing a label to something tends to frame the terms of the ensuing debate, yes, it does.

[stuartcr]

It seems that whether it's called a civil war or not, the stuff is still happening. Most of the tv news I follow...about 15 min/day is Fox, but I must admit, when I view other channels, I don't see much Bush bashing, like everyone else seems to.