PressEthic

Euphemisms are common place in military jargon. Collateral damage and peacekeeping force are two examples of the softened, hollow language used to manipulate public opinions. In Iraq, the Bush administration is fighting vehemently over whether Iraq classifies as a civil war.

Buried deep in the Sunday Times, Edward Wong addressed the issue of civil war in Iraq. First he defined civil war: "The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side."

Under these constraints, Iraq easily meets the mark of civil war.

"I think that at this time, and for some time now, the level of violence in Iraq meets the definition of civil war that any reasonable person would have," James Fearon, a political scientist at Stanford, is quoted in article.

Aside from the scholarly opinion, Iraqis are also calling it civil war:

'If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is,' Wong quoted Prime Minister Allawi.

'You need to let the world know there’s a civil war here in Iraq,' said Adel Ibrahim, 44, a sheik in the Subiah tribe, which is mostly Shiite. 'It’s a crushing civil war. Mortars kill children in our neighborhoods. We’re afraid to travel anywhere because we’ll be killed in buses. We don’t know who is our enemy and who is our friend.'

With Sunnis and Shiites locked in a deadly struggle for control of Iraq, it would seem impossible to deny civil war. Yet this is where the power of language is so strong, as the public is feed ersatz phrases, such as "sectarian violence" and "a zone of warring sectarian factions." This is done in hopes that the America will not see Iraq for what it most certainly is: a bloody civil war, which America created following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Nonetheless, someone out there is trying to spin the public. White House Spokesperson Tony Snow "acknowledged that there were many groups trying to undermine the government, but said that there was no civil war because 'it’s not clear that they are operating as a unified force. You don’t have a clearly identifiable leader,'" wrote Wong, as the administration used semantics for wiggle room.

But the body count cannot be denied. "Mr. Fearon and a colleague at Stanford, David D. Laitin, say the deaths per year in Iraq, with at least 50,000 reportedly killed since March 2003, place this conflict on par with wars in Burundi and Bosnia," wrote Wong.

It is time for the administration and the media to level with the public and call Iraq for what it is.