"Civil War" or "Sectarian Violence" as the narrative on Iraq
Rawstory caught the NYTimes shifting their description of the Iraq situation.
The reason I think this is important is because an Iraqi Civil War has been for years portrayed as a worst case outcome in Iraq, and if the perception is that this has indeed come to fruit, the American people will be far less willing to allow the current stay the course "strategy for victory."
Whether you want the troops out of Iraq now, or you want more thrown in, the bottom line is that the current set of strategies and policies are failing and have failed. The sooner this reality is understood by the American people, the sooner the current policies will be abandoned and replaced. And that is in everyone's interest. (except of course Bush's political interest.)
So, by using minimizing language, "sectarian violence" rather that the more politically meaningful "civil war," the media is making it far easier for the administration to maintain it's current status quo on policy.
And that doesn't help at all.
The New York Times declared on its website early Friday in a headline that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had warned to U.S. was on the "precipice of full-scale civil war." Their headline? "U.S. Envoy in Baghdad Says Iraq Is on Brink of Civil War."I know I'm talking alot about this relatively minor linguistic distinction, but I think that what language the media choses to describe the current situation in Iraq, regardless of the reality on the ground, matters a whole lot in the greater politics of this war.
The reason I think this is important is because an Iraqi Civil War has been for years portrayed as a worst case outcome in Iraq, and if the perception is that this has indeed come to fruit, the American people will be far less willing to allow the current stay the course "strategy for victory."
Whether you want the troops out of Iraq now, or you want more thrown in, the bottom line is that the current set of strategies and policies are failing and have failed. The sooner this reality is understood by the American people, the sooner the current policies will be abandoned and replaced. And that is in everyone's interest. (except of course Bush's political interest.)
So, by using minimizing language, "sectarian violence" rather that the more politically meaningful "civil war," the media is making it far easier for the administration to maintain it's current status quo on policy.
And that doesn't help at all.
posted by mikevotes at
1:04 PM
6 Comments:
Good point.
However, if and when civil war does erupt, it will be more meaningful to use these very despressing and very loaded words freely. The more times they're used in conjunction with "on the brink" or "virtually" or "impending," the more the public will get used to seeing them; the more their meaning will become blurred.
For the Times to say that Iraq is "on the brink of civil war" is editorial and sensationalist. Granted, they were quoting the ambassador, but his quote is not as much the news as what is actually going on.
By
Nonplussed2, at 2:30 PM
The media has been drinking the kool aid for years.
We don't torture, we interrogate. We don't have concentration camps, we have detainees. We didn't have riots after the initial war, we had democracy being untidy. The middle east isn't in chaos, democracy is on the march. Bush doesn't spy on citizens, he has a terrorist survellance program.
I could go on and on. The rhetoric thing has been going on for years and will continue, no matter what the facts on the ground are.
The American people are against the war. But as long as no one has to directly sacrifice, they'll let it pass (talk about the epitome of shallow). And as long as Republicans run the show, we'll stay, no matter what the media call it.
By
Greyhair, at 2:48 PM
I was in the process of writing a post that made the same point about the semantics of "civil war," when I jumped over to you to see if I could find one of the great pics you are so good at tracking down, when I saw this post. Needless to say, you are right on. The US media is going to whitewash anything they can, so we will need to count on the foreign press to help tell it like it is!
On that note, I like this article from an Aussie paper.
By
seenos, at 3:03 PM
Good comments, folks.
Let me say, I support the Murtha plan or some variant there of. But I think this argument applies even if you believe, as McCain has espoused many times, increasing the troop levels.
My main point is that what we have done for the last three years hasn't worked. And pressure and criticism need to be brought to bear to force an alteration of those policies.
Bush is stubbornly holding to the same plan as Iraq rockets down hill and the US military bleeds on the sands of Iraq.
The "spinny" euphemisms used to support this policy are causing people to die. And as Greyhair said, the media are complicit.
And, Seenos, I do like that article title. No hedging for the old ladies in the audience there.
Nonplussed, I think the lull today has brought everyone back in their rhetoric. If it had escalated again today, I don't think it would have been editorializing to call it a civil war, although I would have used the qualifier "low intensity," as we are still yet to see large organized forces or broad geographic strategies.
And, Lex, I think there was a chance. Frankly, I was against the war from the beginning, but Iraq could have been a structured country if they had not disbanded the army and held elections 90 or 120 days in. It still would've resulted in a factionalized government, but the resistance would not have been as organized and well trained as they are now, and would've proved a manageble test for the new government.
Why we didn't do this? I guess you'd have to ask Presidential medal of freedom winner Paul Bremer. He did a heck of a job, ya know.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:47 PM
I was just reading about this as well, and wondered what made them change the ords? Was it pressure from some where else?
By
Lew Scannon, at 6:51 PM
I would guess that they didn't want to get too far out in front and later be accused of being wrong. I would guess self censorship.
But that's just a guess.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home