Killing By Any Other Name
As I start this post, I'm not sure if I am going to attack the Administration, the Media or both.
The Media is agog at NBC's announcement that "[a]fter careful consideration [it] has decided a change in terminology is warranted." Henceforth, whatever is going on in Iraq will be called a "civil war" by NBC.
Tony Snow says, not so fast, what we have is "sectarian violence that seems to be less aimed at gaining full control over an area than expressing differences and also destabilizing a democracy, which is different from civil war, where two sides are clashing for territory and supremacy."
President Bush: "[W]e've been in this phase for a while....It's tough, no question about it." In his opinion, it was "sectarian violence" by people seeking reprisal for attacks by al-Qa'eda. Poor aim by those people.
Ok. Now we have it straight. If the Sunnis and Shiia were slugging it out (which last I heard, they were) for supremacy (which I thought was their purpose) and for territory, rather than mis-guided reprisal against the wrong people, we would have ourselves a civil war. No battles for territory, no civil war. Nope, what you got is your garden-variety sectarian violence. Been there. Done that. Just something we have to expect in "this phase." It's tough. Yeah, your killing always is.
1 comment:
Definitely a civil war. The country is in a state of near total chaos with two major factions fighting each other. The only thing is that the front lines are now beginning to form. It's been a civil war for quite some time now. Just because you don't call a goose by it's name doesn't mean it isn't a goose.
Post a Comment