By Brigitte L. Nacos
After avoiding the term “civil war” for many months, a
number of leading media organizations abandoned their habit to repeat the
administration’s preferred terminology and decided to call the situation in
Iraq what is has been for some time—a civil war. Actually, what happens in Iraq now may
actually be worse than a civil war since nobody knows at any given time what
faction is fighting whom. While the President and his supporters continue to
pretend that there is no civil war but merely an Al Qaeda provoked sectarian
conflict, anarchy may be the best
characterization. Yet, the right-wing warriors beat up on NBC News in
particular for finally describing the chaos in Iraq as a civil war. To be sure,
terms are important. The more the American people recognize the hostilities in Iraq as a civil war, the less they are willing to
have U.S.soldiers deployed and attacked and killed in the midst of a deadly internal
conflict. As Thomas Ricks and Robin Wright report in
today’s Washington Post, there is increasingly a realization among Washington law-makers of both parties and U.S. military leaders on the ground
that the Iraqis themselves must end this blood letting.
As Ricks and Wright report, by shifting the responsibility for fixing the broken down Iraq from the United States to the Iraqi government and powerful factions in Iraq, this may well be the beginning of justifying the withdrawal of American troops. "It is the first manifestation of a 'Who lost Iraq?' argument that will likely rage for years to come," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism who has worked as a U.S.government consultant in Iraq, President Bush repeated yesterday that there will not be a withdrawal of U.S.troops before the mission is completed and that nothing less than victory is acceptable. But what does victory and winning mean in this situation? Neither the President nor others steeped in a state of denial provide answers.
It is ironic that the President continues his optimistic spin at a time, when Baghdad is obviously far too dangerous a site for a meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki and Amman had to be chosen instead. After all, just the other day insurgents shot down an Air Force fighter plane.
Before Mr. Bush arrived in Jordan, he shut down possible, if not likely recommendations by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton by rejecting direct negotiations with Iran (unless the nuclear issue is solved) and a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq within a certain time frame. At the same time, he rejected voices in his own party, among Democrats, and seemingly his future Secretary of Defense who press for diplomatic initiatives, including Iran and Syria, and a summit with all of Iraq’s neighbors.
That much for the promise of more flexibility and bipartisanship made after the mid-term elections earlier this month.
Comments