04/21/07

Sectarian violence.  Ethnic clashes.  Antigovernment infighting.  So many euphemisms for such loss of life, destruction, and despair.  The war in Iraq has been waging for nearly four years, has seen over 3000 coalition casualties and anywhere from 60,000 to a million Iraqi deaths, and has led to the deterioration of Iraqi society and infrastructure.  No end in sight, MSNBC and NBC News decided to use the term “civil war” when discussing the violence in Iraq, starting this week. Said Today’s Matt Lauer, “after careful consideration, NBC News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war.”

        Iraq started optimistically enough.  Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld assured the American public that we would be hailed as liberators and that the conflict would be over in days or weeks, not months.  Vice President Richard Cheney argued that our national security hung in the balance and that invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein was imperative.  Former Secretary of State Colin Powell made the administration’s case on the world stage at the now-infamous UN Security Council meeting where he painted a bleak picture of Iraqi efforts toward securing weapons of mass destruction.

        Turns out, much of the intelligence was falsified or exaggerated, the situation on the ground in Hussein’s absence is vastly more complex than ever imagined, and American and coalition forces are whispering of Vietnam-style quagmires.

        Many historians and social and political scientists argue that not even “civil war” goes far enough in describing the situation in Iraq.  Afterall, “civil war” suggests that two organized forces are battling within a single nation.  In Iraq, however, there is virtually no organization on either end.  There are certainly two warring sects—the Shiites and the Sunnis—however, the violence is not being orchestrated on high by anyone.  These are random, individual atrocities.  Instead of a proper civil war, perhaps “sectarian chaos” would be a more apt description.

        Can a simple phrase affect our individuality?  Does saying “civil war” rather than “sectarian violence” or “sectarian chaos” affect the way we vote?  Does it change our civic personas, the way we interact with the people within our own social settings?  And are we different people when our country is not at war?  What would you look like if peace and love were the order from on high?

Have an opinion? Post it here:  Dontbanme Forums