Why is the Bush administration so hesitant to label the Iraq conflict a "civil war?"?

Question

I'm curious about why the semantics are so important.

And I'm not looking for answers like, "because they're stupid." Reasonable, well-thought-out answers would be good.

Answer 1

There are civil tensions not doubt due to religion. But most of the killings are courtesy of Syrians, Iranians (mostly) and even the Lebanese who have entered Iraq to cause discourse. There has been elections and a democratic, shaky but never the less still there, government in place. This is what the Iraqi people want. They are getting better at this, but little at a time. The fact is, most Iraqi insurgents aren't even Iraqis-they come from other countries.

Answer 2

Well a civil war involves 2 sides that are in a none loosely aligned alliance. In this situation it is a localized tribal thing. The problem is Iraq and the middle east were not countries until around WWI. That is when Britain named them. So the problem is larger than a civil war it was the creation of countries that never existed b4 out of the old ottoman empire. While within these countries there were people that had nothing to do with the larger area of the country, like the Kurds to the north.

So its not a civil war because these people were never allowed to set up their own country and there are many factions that have a totally different agenda.

It is a very complicated problem that is as old as the history of the area.... Rome fought there as well as Greece and their lands have been counquered for a long time they have not been quote free for some 1000's of years. They are always occuppied. Part of the problem is there is no unity there. Until they unify they will contiune to be occupied that is one reason why the new Iraqi Government is to be so important. If it survives it will be the first republic or democracy created in the middle east. Hopefully it endures if it does then similiar governments will form in that area.

Not civil war the end of a 2,000 year occupation.

Answer 3

1)Bush has a long history of not amitting failures
2)If it is labeled a "Civil War" it justifies the violence. And gives new soveignty to the renegades
3)Because it is not a Civil War, as there is only one operating government. NO ONE else is claiming to be ruling Iraq other than the American Installed Government.
4)Civil War, isn't a defined term. Technically any war is a Civil War. Because usually or almost always, it's two different groups of people fighting over one place.
5)I'd still say sectarian violence, since many small groups are acting independantly. There is not enough organization in all of Iraq to justify a Civil War
6)You Need two STANDING armies for there to be a Civil War. The only standing army is a foreign occupier.

Bottom Line,
It's just a plain old mess!

Answer 4

No offense, but Dan's answer is only half-right.

The civil tensions are religious in nature, but downplaying their importance is misleading. Saddam kept the country together through brute force. Without that level of concentrated and ruthless pressure, the country would've fallen into divisive war a long time ago.

Iran is Shia dominated, and would welcome the breakup of Iraq by asserting influence on Shiite Iraqis in the east. The border there has been in dispute for a long time. Iraqi Kurds have been making moves towards independence (which Turkey fears) and Saddam regularly attacked and bombed Kurdish villages to keep them in check.

Finally, the insurgency is led (according to CIA Factbook) by Sunni Arabs. Arabs make up 75 to 80% of Iraq's population and most of them are Sunni. To say that all the trouble-makers are outsiders is misleading. Saddam and the Baathists were Shiite, and his government was Shiite-controlled. There has been a rift between Sunni and Shia in Iraq for a long time, and it's religious, but also political in nature.

There is much anger in the Sunni communities after a long and oppressive rule by a Shia minority.

To get to the question though, George Bush doesn't want to call it a civil war, because it's the final straw. It would be a clear message of FAILURE. It would mean the war is out of US control, and more importantly it would mean that the US could not take sides without showing a favouritism that would render a unified democracy impossible in the short term.

After all, if it's a civil war, who would the US attack? As long as we're fighting "foreign insurgents and al-Qaeda" US military actions are justified and noble. If it's a civil war "officially" then the US will have to leave and it will be UGLY and a complete embarrassment and failure.

Answer 5

Perhaps because the Bush administration has been trying to understand the violence in terms of Al-Qaida and the war on terror. A civil war seems to imply that the violence in Iraq has moved beyond terrorism into the general population. If there is a civil war, it means the brunt of responsibility lies with Iraqis themselves and not with terrorists.

Another possibility is that Bush has been using strong rhetoric to promote the strength of democracy and democratic regimes all over the world. That might make him more hesitant to discuss frankly whether the one in Iraq has failed.

Answer 6

I think its because the a change in wording might make some remaining supporters of the war rethink their position, and this would cause more support for a pull out or a time line, which the top military commanders are against

Answer 7

I don't have a well thought response. I believe they do not want to give in to all of the news sources, reporters and public figures who will respond with a resounding "We told you so!". They're just trying to save what face they have left.

Answer 8

Because they're stupid.


Seriously, because they don't want to admit it.