"The situation with sectarian violence in Baghdad is very serious," said Gen. John P. Abizaid of the Army, top U.S. commander for the Middle East, on Friday, while defending the decision to pour more American troops into the Iraqi capital.
The day before, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said that "that there is a civil war going on in Iraq." He wants to reopen the war debate on the Senate floor. Is he nuts? Why risk walking into yet another Republican ambush?
And that is why the war of the words is so critical right now. No two words carry more explosive weight in this political debate than "civil war."
As long as the crisis in Iraq is viewed as sectarian violence and not the civil war it has become, the White House will continue to taunt its critics by acting like schoolyard bullies--and using familiar phrases like "cut and run" and "retreat and defeat."
To counter their reckless rhetoric, it is necessary to rebrand the anti-war movement. It's time to really go on the verbal offensive and reach into the Lakoffian bag of easy-to-convey language. Calling Bush a war criminal won't do. Bit this might: "We support the troops, but if it's a civil war, game over. Bring the troops home. We honor and salute their sacrifice, but victory is impossible."
It's why those two words--"civil war"--must sear itself into the hearts and minds of Americans.
Generally speaking, the majority of the public, while showing disapproval for the war, supports our fighting men and women but are hesistant to demand a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces. Yet if it constantly hears and reads that Iraq is mired in civil war, the political mood will quickly shift.
Even though Iraq has passed that tipping point into civil war --there's an average of 100 deaths per day, according to a recent U.N. report-- it's another sign of its uncertain hold on its audience that mainstream America media delicately skirts the semantics of what to accurately label the Iraqi violence.
Some newspapers and magazines are only just beginning to use the phrase "low-grade civil war." Why not drop "low-grade" altogether as a qualifier?
As far back as the summer 2004, CIA officials groused that Iraq was reaching the breaking point of civil war, but their warnings were consistently airbrushed from the always upbeat Bush-Rumsfeld-Rice party line that the insurgency was weakening.
During a March 2006 press conference, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld offered this head-in-the-quicksand reply to a reporter's question on the subject: "Do I think we're in a civil war at the present time? No. {But} what would a civil war in Iraq look like? I will say, I don't think it'll look like the United States Civil War." It's the kind of flippant remark we expect to hear from the Bumbler of Baghdad. Though he did confirm that the Department of Defense is "war-gaming a civil war," according to military analyst Robert Dreyfuss.
Lapdogs no more, editors need to employ "civil war" in newspaper headlines and television news reports.. Give up being circumspect and unduly cautious. Turn a deaf ear to the Fox-Limbaugh-Coulter axis of evil. We're not talking about phantom WMDs. We're talking about corpses in the street. Torture victims with drill holes in their skulls. Residents gunned down in their own homes Neighborhoods demarcated into no-go zones. Baghdad is the new "old" Beruit. Sorry Rummy, these are known knowns.
And that's why those two words--"civil war"--can act as electoral shock therapy, especially as we enter the home stretch of mid-term elections.
Dubya became president in 2000, in a large part, on the simplicity and strength of two words: compassionate conservative. Let's return the favor, and use another pair of words--"civil war"--to help set into motion permanent change in the other direction.
By redrawing the battle lines in the sands of language, new moral clarity will hopefully emerge.