The C-Word

From the opposite perspective, American Prospect's Greg Sargent says it's time for one newspaper to get with it:

"The New York Times has agreed to begin describing the Iraq war as a 'civil war.' From a piece just posted at Editor and Publisher:

" ' After consulting with our reporters in the field and the editors who directly oversee this coverage, we have agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war when they and their editors believe it is appropriate,' Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, revealed in a statement sent to E&P. 'It's hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. . .

" ' We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of 'civil war' is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated.'

"Meanwhile, the Washington Post's executive editor, Leonard Downie, Jr., continues to hold out:

"The Washington Post, however, has made no such announcement. Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, told E&P's Joe Strupp: 'We just describe what goes on everyday. We don't have a policy about it. We are not making judgments one way or another. The language in the stories is very precise when dealing with it. At various times people say it is 'close to a civil war,' but we don't have a policy about it.'

" 'We don't have a policy about it' is a curious dodge. Does that mean the paper's reporters can use the phrase to describe the war in the paper's pages if they so choose? Doesn't look that way . . .

"The Times is now prepared to acknowledge reality. Why is the Post so reluctant to do the same?"

I have no problem in using the phrase. But I don't think every news outlet needs to have an edict from on high.

I continue to believe that the day-to-day coverage of the carnage in Iraq is more important in terms of swaying public opinion than the label that the MSM chooses to slap on the conflict. Did most people think this wasn't a civil war before Lauer et al made the switch? I don't think so.

Here's a vote of no confidence in our ally in the non-civil war:

"A classified memorandum by President Bush's national security adviser expressed serious doubts about whether Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had the capacity to control the sectarian violence in Iraq and recommended that the United States take new steps to strengthen the Iraqi leader's position," the New York Times reports.