Fox Don't Need Your Civil War
Fox news has decided to not use the term "Civil War" when referring to Iraq. Fine, they can do whatever they want, they can call it a "domestic dispute" if they want, their company, their words. I do want to point out a flaw in their reasoning though.
"We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different."Not to quibble but every "official" civil-war I can think of has had outside players involved. But don't just take my word, Websters says a Civil War is,
"a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country."Near as I can tell, that pretty much encapsulates the situation.
Like I said, I don't really care, nor am I too concerned with what Fox calls it. However, for the sake of trying to "solve" Iraq its important to call it what it is, a civil war. Look, I've avoided the words myself, not wanting to give it roots. I've called it "fall out," "the consequence of this war," and other things, but, like all things, ultimately it is what it is. Dubbing the Iraq civil war something that its not for the sake of ego, window dressing, politics or whatever only takes our nation farther from potential solutions. In order to fix anything, you have to correctly identify the problem. In order to find a solution to the Iraq civil war, we have to acknowledge the reality of what's going on.
I think the great political observer Natalie Imbruglia says it best about the Iraq civil war when she writes in the magnum "Torn,"
There's nothin' where he used to lie
My conversation has run dry
That's what's going on
Nothings right
I'm torn
I'm all out of faith
This is how I feel
I'm cold and I am shamed
Lying naked on the floor
Illusion never changed
Into something real
I'm wide awake and I can see the perfect sky is torn
You're a little late
I'm already torn
Posts
7 comments:
Natalie Imbruglia is hot. Oh yea, and I agree.
I, too, care very little if Iraq has become a civil war or not. However, I missed the flaw in reasoning that you've pointed out. Doesn't the significant interference by Iran and Syria lead to a violation of Webster's definition? I'm also curious what other nations were fighting in the American Civil War? This was probably all covered in Costa Rica, but I can't even remember where I left my Natalie Imbruglia albums...
Two parter.
First, the definition states that a civil war is, "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Doesn't say, "only," "solely," or "just." So that's that.
As far as the US Civil War. I use the example of gun and cotton runners from Britain.
Our own Revolutionary War was a Civil War that the rebels won. It had loads of French and German influence.
Civil Wars are never fought only by between the people of a nation. Others always play a role; too much at stake, too much influence to be had, and too much money to make. This was true in the US, and in every civil war I can think of in history of the world, including the ones that we've meddled in.
Clearly, Iran and Syria are involved in Iraq in a much more significant way than simply supplying arms. Iran is fighting a proxy war with us in Iraq much as China did in Korea. Therefore, to consider this conflict as more than a civil war seems quite reasonable. That does not preclude there being a civil component.
And clearly the French and Germans had a much larger role in the Revolutionary war (or civil war if we lost). You're picking and choosing. Again, every civil war in history has had outside players. I cannot think of one that was solely between citizens of one nation. Having Iran involved, no matter how deep isn't an "out," its just what one would expect in any civil war, namely outside influence. If it helps, think of it this way. If Saddam fell on his own, Iran would still be a player in the civil war that followed. They're not there because we are (but hey are there because we botched the "peace"). Furthermore, having two nations fight a proxy via another, weaker country isn't new, nor does it alter the definition of what's going on. If we had "won" in Korea, it would have been called the "Korean Civil War."
I think your hatred of the media blinds you to the rare cases when they have it right. Its a civil war by definition. If the battles spread to the areas around Iraq then it will become a Regional War, and if alliances bring other, more distant allies into battle then it will be a World War. But to say its not a Civil War because of Iran and Syria denies the fact that its still Iraqi's fighting Iraqis, which is, again, by definition a "Civil War."
Call it whatever you want, it really doesn't matter. After all, you can call a rose a brick and it would still smell as sweet.
I'm not following your argument now. I only made the point that Fox (or me, or Bush, or your crazy Uncle Festus) can reasonable call the Iraq conflict something other than a civil war. There are significant elements that are not Iraqis fighting for reasons that are only tangentially related to Iraq. That is not often the case in "normal" civil wars. I also stated that I think your view is reasonable as you are simply weighting the influences differently. I would never say (and haven't) that the mainstream media is wrong to call it a civil war. I think that is a reasonable conclusion. Personally, I don't have enough information to say what it clearly is. So I'm not going to go out on a limb and call one group faulty in their reasoning. There may be bias motivating the conclusion for some people, but there doesn't have to be.
I think the hang up here may be that you attacked them for offering "there are non-Iraqis in the fray" as the only rational for their conclussion. Then I would agree with you, that was not well worded. However, they would be above your criticism if they had said something more akin to that influence being significant to the point of driving the dispute and not simply jumping on.
When the Duke of Wellington beat Napoleon at Waterloo it wasn't a Belgian civil war. Belgium had fighters involved and it happened on their soil, but I'm not calling it a civil war even though your friend Webster would disagree (as long as there was a Belgian or two fighting with Napoleon).
I apologize if I confused the matter by not clarifying that I wasn't supporting Fox's definition. They should have been clearer, but I'm confident they meant the very thing that I'm trying awkwardly to say. But I won't demand you grant that point...you don't have to be reasonable too.
Of all the Stalin Malones in the world, you're the Stalin Maloniest.
Post a Comment