NBC Deems Iraq To Be In 'Civil War'

(CBS/AP)  NBC News and MSNBC broke away from the pack of mainstream media and decided to use the term "civil war" to describe current fighting in Iraq.

Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times became one of the first newspapers to use the term "civil war" without a qualifier.

"Apparently the utter chaos and carnage of the past week has finally convinced some to use 'civil war' without apology," Editor & Publisher reported.

Early Monday morning, Matt Lauer on the "Today" show bluntly laid out NBC News' decision to freely use the term "civil war," although the White House has consistently rejected claims that Iraq's sectarian violence had deteriorated into a civil war.

"For the most part, news organizations like NBC hesitated to characterize it as such. After careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted and what is going on in Iraq can now be characterized as civil war," Lauer said.

The reports were broadcasting as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani arrived for an official visit in Iran, where he is expected to seek its help in preventing Iraq's sectarian violence from escalating.

Also, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Monday that Iraq is close to civil war. Annan talked to reporters in New York as members of the Iraq Study Group were to discuss recommendations for changes in U.S. war strategy.

Asked by reporters at the U.N. if Iraq is in a civil war now, Annan replied, "I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there."

Sectarian violence in Iraq is at its worst level in the roughly 3 1/2 years since a U.S.-led coalition invaded the country and toppled Saddam Hussein. Bush's summit this week comes in the wake of talks that Vice President Dick Cheney held over the weekend in the region and as members of the special study commission mull recommendations.

"We should mention we didn't wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'let's call this a civil war,' this took careful deliberation. We consulted with a lot of people," Lauer said.

Lauer then defined "civil war," saying it includes at least two clearly defined fighting groups using violence as a means to gain political supremacy and a government in place that is unable to control the violence.

The White House objected to NBC News' decision to use "civil war" and said in a statement: "While the situation on the ground is very serious, neither Prime Minister Maliki nor we believe that Iraq is in a civil war."

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer explained on air, "After careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We'll have lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase 'civil war.'"

Meanwhile in Iraq, a mortar attack ignited a huge fire Monday night at an oil facility in the northern part of the country, shutting the flow of crude oil to a major refinery. Also, a U.S. Air Force jet with one pilot aboard crashed in Anbar province, a hotbed of the Sunni-Arab insurgency, officials said. Al-Jazeera reported that the pilot was killed.

Two mortar rounds hit the facility 15 miles northwest of Kirkuk, according to an official at the North Oil Co., speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

The fire was burning out of control and could take hours or longer to extinguish, and the flow of oil from all of Kirkuk's rich fields has been shut down to the massive Beiji refinery to the southwest, the official said.

After the F-16CG jet went down, a witness said other U.S. warplanes rushed to the crash site about 20 miles northwest of Baghdad and circled above it. The U.S. military, which released a statement on the crash, did not have any information on the suspected cause or the fate of the pilot.

But Al-Jazeera television showed videotape of the wreckage in a field and what appeared to be portions of a tangled parachute nearby. The broadcaster said the video included scenes of the dead pilot but that they were too graphic to air.

One shot showed an Air Force seal that said Air Combat Command.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[jackntx]

Ronin10,

Third, Regarding infiltration and leadership. Another generality devoid of any specific facts.

The last 3 months have seen strides made by the Maliki government to aggressively address the issue of infiltration. See the November 21 article at http://www.mnf-iraq.com regarding the government taking on the militias and noting that recently, 3000 persons in the Ministry of the Interior, under which the police force is established, were fired because of ties to militias.

Do the research and see for yourself how much the mainstream media is not telling us about the ongoing progress in Iraq.

Violence and progress co-exist in Iraq. Yes, it's tough, but it is plain wrong to focus only on the violence and ignore the good that has occurred as well.

[jackntx]

Ronin10,

First, you're trying to compare a 230 year democracy to a 7 MONTH old democracy. The analogy is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that the population of Iraq has spent the last 30+ years being brutalized by a ruthless and murderous dictator.

Second, your generalized assertion about training Iraqis is utterly incorrect.

The facts:

The process of building the Iraqi security forces is about 75% complete. See the Oct. 25 article at http://www.mnf-iraq.com (under News, Daily Articles) describing the complex environment.

320,000 trained Iraqi security forces exist and 355,000 will be trained end of 2006. See Nov. 11 article quoting Maj.Gen. Caldwell.

Iraqi security forces are RIGHT NOW leading in 75% of the operations. See the November 3 article quoting Caldwell regarding PM Maliki's plans. See also the October 27 article quoting Caldwell regarding Iraqis taking responsibility across Iraq.

Rapid progress is occurring to eliminate terrorists and insurgents: in November so far, 816 terrorists and insurgents have been killed or detained, while 63 US military have been killed, resulting in a ratio of 13 to 1 !!! See the press releases at http://www.mnf-iraq.com (under News, Press Releases).

See next post for third point.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[scouser345-2009]

When are you braindead Bush muppets gonna get it. This war is a lost cause. Ill conceived adventure to begin with, absolutely no planning for the aftermath. If ever there was an opportunity to salvage the situation it has long since passed. Go ahead blame "traitors at home" blame liberal media, blame Santa if it makes you feel better , it really doesn't matter because at this point most Americans are not buying it anyway. The blame for this disaster lies squarely on the shoulders of Mr "Mission Accomplished"

[scouser345-2009]

Jackntx -According to Websters dictionary, the definition of civil war is " A war between political factions OR regions within the same country" Shiite's and Sunni's butchering each other at a record levels, mixed ethnic neighborhoods disapearing and a government that has no ability to quell the violence and thus is quickly becoming irrelevant. Good call N.B.C.

[jackntx]

Scouser345,

Most facts about Iraq are not reported by the major media. That is why so many, and now even some so-called 'neocons' are buying into the tripe about gracefully turning tail in Iraq.

Mh4cbs1,

An important point about 'civil war' is that one of the factions involved in the conflict has to be outside the government that it is fighting. Right now, that is not the case in Iraq. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are all part of the government.

NBC and MSNBC are not displaying 'jounalistic integrity' with their self-proclaimed 'civil war.' Instead, it is yet another brazen attempt to foist its biased view onto the American public.

To say that Iraq was not a threat is simply deciding to live in land of Oz! I took your suggestion and perused the PNAC website. A very interesting (and very meticulously documented) report entitled 'Setting the Record Straight about Iraq' under the 'What's New' section is very instructive. The report was issued in April of 2005. Read it and learn!!

[mh4cbs1]

Civil War? DUH!

When with CBS have the journalistic integrity to call it what it is?

George Bush legacy? Started a Civil War. Lied to the American people to invade Iraq, a country that was NOT a threat and they knew it.

Read PNAC position papers and you will understand that these NeoCon facists are unapologetic violent, milataristic imperialists. Read it in their own words, just Google "PNAC".

They used 9-11 as their Pearl Harbor (their words) to scare Americans into complacency. They LIED about Iraq, fabricated "intelligence", and knew Iraq was NOT a threat.

Impeach Bush? Obviously!, But then JAIL BUSH, CHENEY and their treasonous gang of murdering thugs.

Do it in the name of every dead US soldier, every soldier with missing limbs, brain damage from IEDs. Do it for the hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi civilians.

The death and destruction unleashed by Bush and Cheney is 100 times the horror of Osama. Face the FACTS and JAIL BUSH.

[tinker3478]

Let's see if we can profile ****rocks, shall we? He is a white male between the ages of 45 and 60. Obviously, he is educated as obnoxious as he may seem. He possibly has a high IQ; it's hard to tell. He probably doesn't have a son since he is so eager for the war to continue. He is disabled and/or unemployed because he can be on these sites any hour of the day or night. Because he has a computer with internet service, someone in the household works-either a wife or girlfriend. He is evidently impotent and feels the need to vent his frustration on the rest of the world.

How am I doing so far?

scouser345 I don't think that bushrocks1 even reads any of the articles or the posts, just pastes his garbage and moves on, rather like the Bush administration, shoot us some *** and move on to the next subject and have no idea what he talking about