What's In a Name:

NBC has made the headlines it intended to make with its decision to start calling the conflict in Iraq a civil war. This is one of those media events that is essentially meaningless. Like pointing out that the war in Iraq has now lasted longer than World War II. Like making headlines out of the war dead in increments of 500.

NBC's online report on its watershed decision rather lamely avoids getting seriously into definitions or any discussion of its decision in this matter.

As the AP coverage of the big event points out, some definitions of "civil war" could have been applied a long time ago. More than 1,000 dead in civil strife between political or geographic factions being at the lower end of the spectrum.

More conservatively, AP cites GlobalSecurity.org's five criteria: "The contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces and engage in major military operations." Those criteria have only marginally been met by the Mahdi Army, if at all. Its forces remain irregular, have not managed any sustained military operations, and while it controls some elements of the population, lacks cohesive control of territory. It is supported by a foreign nation, but has no recognition as a government.

But in applying a label like "civil war," the shades of definition are actually irrelevant. Just like making headlines out of the KIA count and the comparative lengths of wars, calling Iraq a civil war has a purpose independent of its descriptive qualities. That is its suggestive quality.

Vietnam is now also called a civil war by those who believe we had no business there. NBC's unilateral declaration of Iraq as a civil war follows from, and is intended to support the idea that we don't belong there.

In the case of Iraq as in Vietnam, the label "civil war" ignores key factors and ramifications.

What happens in Iraq is being determined in large part by external, non-Iraqi players. Iran. Syria. Al-Qaeda. The United States. Saudi Arabia.

What happens in Iraq will have a tremendous affect on the regional power of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and on the global power of the United States and al-Qaeda. Indirectly it will have an affect on the power of China, as our power and credibility are diminished. Indirectly it will have an effect on the futures of third nations such as Lebanon, Israel and Afghanistan.

The war for Iraq is not only about the future of Iraq, but about the future of the Middle East, the security of the United States, the future of the United States as a world power, and the future of the values our nation represents in the world.

In this context, Iraq transcends civil war. It is, as was Vietnam, in significant parts a proxy war on which the world order for decades to come may very well hinge.

A "proxy war" is not a very sexy term. A "proxy war" against terrorist-supporting nations is one we can't walk away from.

You're not going to see IRAQ: THE PROXY WAR on an NBC banner any time soon.

But with both the Los Angeles Times and NBC calling it a civil war, you will very soon see the New York Times, the Associated Press and nearly every other media organization in the United States fall in line.


Update:
APopovich in comments says...
"Looks like Time magazine has already jumped on that one over the weekend:" He proceeds to cite chapter and verse on the latest civil war buffs. Visit APopovich over at
Tao of Defiance while you're at it. Great Oz site.
As long as we're media-bashing, Anchoress rounds up (the latest) APgate. Follow links to Flopping Aces, Dan Riehl, Protein Wisdom and others.