Somebody in THEIR government says so, but OURS remains unwilling to speak the words aloud.
NY Times story concludes: Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution shows how the linguistic battle lines are drawn: " 'Iraq is now at civil war' means 'we have already lost the battle and we should get out now'; 'Iraq is now experiencing sectarian violence' means 'Iraq's natural propensity is toward civil war, but thank God for the presence of American forces that are preventing it.' " But Charles Krauthammer, the most powerful conservative-internationalist columnist, had noted in 2004: "There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side is fighting it." Recalling this recently in The Washington Post, Krauthammer updated his point: "Does not everyone who wishes us well support the strategy of standing up the Iraqis so we can stand down? And does that not mean getting the Iraqis to fight the civil war themselves?"
War-namers, stand down: what was euphemized after the U.S. Civil War as "the late unpleasantness" will not get a name until it's over.
Quoting myself from last October...
That country is having a civil war and we are in the midst of it. We claim to be "fighting for freedom and democracy," but if the truth be known -- if anything like "democracy" were to be had today, with the will of a majority dictating what should happen next -- I very seriously doubt that anything like a majority would be in favor of the United States' remaining in Iraq and continuing this war. The US is no longer seen as a liberator but an occupation force. We may have the hearts and minds of a lot of Iraqis, but mathematically I do not believe that we have anything resembling a majority. And the last time I checked, majority rule is what is meant by the word "democracy."
Monday, April 10, 2006
Posted by Hoots at 8:00 PM