Fox News: Iraq Civil War $B!H(BMade Up By The Media?$B!I(B

[Hardrock69]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/01/...dia-civil-war/

[Roy Munson]

Iraq is not in Civil War – despite Mainstream Media Hype for the Contrary

By Steve Yuhas



As South Carolina begins to discuss and prepare to remember the sesquicentennial of the onset of the U.S. Civil War at Fort Sumter; another group of talking heads is attempting to convince the people of the world that a state of civil war exists in Iraq. The only problem is that the violence in Iraq today is no different when some of these same people declared that civil war existed two years ago. They seem only to keep repeating it until it either happens or a sufficient number of people think that it is happening.



Like most things there is even debate over what a civil war is. Some say that it requires at least two organized armies fighting one another for power and others say that it can be simple factions fighting for national control of resources or power. One thing, though, is not argued and that is that there has to be more than simply bombing and killing to consider violence a civil war.



Unfortunately, many in the western press have ignored the definition of what a civil war is and have adopted the notion that a pseudo-insurgency in Iraq, made up of many outside forces, is now either a precursor to or an all out civil war.



William Lind, writing for UPI, wrote nearly two years ago in a column that “the Sunnis and the Shiites appear to be splitting into smaller, mutually hostile elements. There are indications that the Sunnis, the secularists, who are mostly Baathists, and the Islamists are starting to go at it.”



Apart from the fact that he was wrong then and that no organized effort on either side is taking shape – there is some violence among each faction against the other, but that does not create a civil war. It is an insurgency, perhaps, and terrorism for certain, but a civil war? Come on.



Headlines across the world using “civil war” to describe what can best be described as the events that take place after every nation goes through a period of turmoil when it is asked to either stay together or break apart. It would be difficult to look at a map of the world today and find any nation whose boundaries are not the result of civil war or wars of aggression. Iraq may not be any different, but to call what is happening in Iraq today a civil war is wrong on the merits and the definition.



Yes, militants who desire to see a nation be defeated when it has the opportunity to come together under a democratic form of government are blowing up religious symbols and what started out a tit for tat offensive inside religious compounds has gradually become killings for the sake of killing based on faith, but that is not civil war – it is violence plain and simple.



Sunni versus Shiites is the rallying cry, but to listen to a reporter on the ground in Baghdad one has to come away with a different opinion than that which is leading the major news networks – some of whom seem to be rooting for civil war.



Ralph Peters of the New York Post is in Iraq and his reporting is fair. He is the first to point out problems with the US or Iraqi government handling of events and he praises them when it is due. He is also a good person to report what is happening on the ground since he is there when so many pieces regarding Iraq are being written by people who have never set foot in the country.



For the record, I have.



He makes the following observation, “The reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.”



It does not get more clear than that – well maybe unless you read what follows the acts of violence against Iraqis, “Here in Baghdad, it just made the average Iraqis hate the terrorists even more.”



Our own Civil War began with a bang at Fort Sumter and picked up pace quickly as the Confederacy formed a government and did all that it could to become a nation of her own. There is no movement in Iraq for separation, no leaders emerging that could maintain or be the standard bearer for the various factions and although violent – the violence this last week is not really any different than in weeks passed.



The only difference is that in the west some look at the bombing of the Golden Dome as a precursor to civil war and the reaction in the streets of defiant religious people as the moral equivalent of Fort Sumter.

It is not the same.



Civil war requires logistics and personalities that are lacking in Iraq and in both the Sunni and Shiite camps there is hope from religious and secularists alike that the violence that has been happening will force a quick formation of a new Iraqi government. If one were to simply look at all of the civil wars that have been fought in the last 200 years, our own included, it took a lot more than a bombing or the murders of innocents for it to start or for there to be a precursor to war.



It seems that the people that are looking for civil war are the same people who predicted it and lest they be selfish enough to admit it – it would not hurt their careers or airtime to be correct. Fortunately the people in the Arab world are not looking at the violence in Iraq as anything different than the violence of any other time in the last three years.



When a news program has to say that such and such symbol is the twentieth most important this or that in all of a particular type of Islam then even the average person should begin to start listening to Iraqis who happen to be more angry with the people killing them than they are with their neighbors of different sects.



Growing pains take time to fix themselves and freedom and an Iraqi style democracy will not happen without sacrifice, but it is not only premature to call the violence in Iraq civil war, but dangerous lest people believe that it is.



What is happening in Iraq today is the same as has been happening in Iraq for years: people are trying to derail a united Iraqi government from taking shape.



Luckily the people of Iraq are reading western newspapers and watching our “news” and dismissing it because even the simplest Iraqi understands that it takes more than a few bombings of important places to create a civil war and that is all that is happening now. Unfortunately more people will die in the mainstream media’s quest for a civil war to be unleashed in Iraq – it would make a great story, but is completely wrong on its face.



Where is Jefferson Davis when you need him?

[thome]

The true conspiracy rears it's ugly head once again.

[Hardrock69]

Considering that only 10 companies control all the media outlets on earth (aside from the internet), it is easy to see how news gets filtered before reaching the public.

There are MANY important stories in the news EVERY DAY that never get heard by Americans.

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, and the SHIITEs don't control the security forces and are hardly executing any of the SUNNI men being taken away in police cars and military vehicles...

And the SUNNI's aren't attacking the mostly said SHIITE controlled security forces, and slaughtering their fellow Iraqi countrymen...

Oh, BTW, the IRANIAN's are hardly supporting the SHIITE militias....

All evidence to the contrary, FOX news almost has a clue, rumor has it...

There is in fact a low level civil war going on, and the only thing that prevents it from being full blown is that the SHIITE religious clerics (al-SISTANI) (you know, those evil irrational Muslims everyone hates here so much even though they're so happy we liberated them from SADDAM's tyranny) are pleading for calm and no reprisals...

But that won't fly forever...

And BTW, "War is peace."

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Considering that only 10 companies control all the media outlets on earth (aside from the internet), it is easy to see how news gets filtered before reaching the public.

There are MANY important stories in the news EVERY DAY that never get heard by Americans.

Wow. You are brilliant.