Calling Iraq a Civil War Is Telling It Like It Is

Even before the war in Iraq, the Bush administration manipulated the media. It promised access through embedding with troops. Then it misinformed about the war's progress. Independent reporting came under attack as unpatriotic.

With little resistance, the White House put words in our mouths.

Some in the press repeated whatever balderdash spewed from the White House propaganda machine. If the administration used "insurgency," so did we. If it said "sectarian violence," so did we. We parroted.

This explains the buzz last week when NBC and MSNBC announced "civil war" would be used to describe what's happening in Iraq. It was a marked departure worthy of a press kit.

The New York Times also announced its use of civil war when correspondents and editors "believe it is appropriate." With less fanfare, so did the Los Angeles Times weeks ago.

Well, stop the presses!

When you have to issue a policy statement to explain why you've decided to call a duck a duck, it just confirms how far we've strayed since Mencken, White, Murrow, Cronkite and Brokaw.

Here's what was said on air at NBC: "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."

Perhaps the term will stick now that former Secretary of State Colin Powell similarly characterized the Sunni-Shiite violence, a consequence of the U.S. invasion.

"I would call it a civil war," Powell told a business forum in Dubai last week. "I have been using it (civil war) because I like to face the reality."

Reality is something the Bush administration shuns. That's why it coined "a new phase in the war." To admit to civil war would be an admission of a policy failure. Warned of the possibility of this outcome in pre-war discussions, the administration is disavowing now for political reasons.

Its denials have been reckless and its media attacks malicious. The White House accused The Times and Washington Post of allegedly helping the terrorists at the expense of our troops for reports that embarrassed or contradicted the administration.

Fortunately, the press has some defenders with military experience in Iraq.

By rejecting the hype and risking their lives in war zones, journalists are supporting our troops, according to knowledgeable source Gen. Anthony Zinni.

"I think the American media's being made a scapegoat for what's going on out there," the retired Marine told NBC's Tim Russert. "It's hard to blame the media for no good stories when the security situation is such that they can't even go out and get the good stories without risking their lives."

Zinni told Russert that he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee weeks before the war that he did not view Iraq as an imminent threat to our national security. He was overruled by the spin doctors behind the Bush agenda in Iraq.

"I saw what this town is known for: spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses or the context," Zinni said. "We know the mushroom clouds and the other things that were all described that the media covered well. I saw on the ground, though, a sort of walking away from 10 years' worth of planning."

Early on, this administration clarified some things for the post-9/11 psyche: You were either with the terrorists or you were with the war on terror. Either you supported the terrorists or you supported the troops. Media were at the crossroads and in the cross hairs.

The propaganda pandemic led to self-censorship and policy statements. It led to bottom-line concerns about reader or viewer backlash. It led to fears of government reprisals.

With as much money as the Bush administration spends on public relations, it doesn't need a free ride any longer from the free press.

Truth in this war was a strategic disaster. Our troops are stuck in a backdoor draft. Bush's national security adviser has little confidence in the Iraqi prime minister. U.S. companies are profiteering from this war. Iraqi civilian deaths have soared since 2003. There is no exit strategy. Saddam Hussein is gone, but the mission was not accomplished. Iraq, now a breeding ground for al-Qaeda, is in civil war.

Rhonda Chriss Lokeman (lokeman@kcstar.com) is a columnist for the Kansas City Star. To find out more about Rhonda Chriss Lokeman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.