why do people say that the pentagon wants americans to think that iraq is NOT in a civil war?

Question

when you answer, kindly state your sex, age, and what political leanings you think you have (liberal, conservative, etc.) so i can simply analyze your answer. please, no snide answers. i am trying to understand why:

if it really looks like the people of iraq are fighting against one another (which would be a type of a civil war), what reason would the pentagon have to tell us that iraq is NOT having a civil war?

even if iraq's battles do equal a civil war, what is wrong with americans knowing that?

how does a country's status of being in a civil war or not affect public thinking about our country being involved in it (due to, in this example, eliminating saddam's reign of terror and march into kuwait, for example) with troops protecting civilians?

what WOULD the pentagon have us think and why? (PS: don't think about natural resources when answering. iraq doesn't have much oil anyways, but the surrounding area has 53% of all petroleum in the world).

please, no snideness.

Answer 1

male, 58, registered independent, Vietnam veteran.

I think it's simply a matter of semantics. The basic dispute between the Sunnis and the Shiites is religious. The essence is whether Ali is the legitimate heir to Mohammad. They have been arguing about that for roughly 1300 years. Some people define a civil war as a war only against a government and the Iraqi dispute is against the current government, but only in part. While I think a religious war is more accurate, the distinction is not of any importance since the result is the same. I can't think of any reason the Pentagon is disputing the existence of a civil war that should be kept from the American people. Maybe the Pentagon thinks we will suddenly change our opinion if its always described as a war on terror. I use the word "we" to describe the majority opinion in the nation, not to express my own opinion, btw. My opinion is that the label we put on this conflict has no significance. We invaded a country that refused to allow the UN weapon inspectors to do their jobs. We captured Saddam and destroyed the weapons he had. We helped the Iraqis form a government. I think we're done, and we will not be able to stop the sectarian violence. Of course, your comment about the march into Kuwait is interesting. If we had chased the Iraqis back to Baghdad then, we wouldn't be in this war. On the other hand, President G.H.W. Bush, the President's father, was obeying the UN resolution by not pursing Saddam in Operation Desert Storm. As I see it, no matter what we do, we're the bad guys to the rest of the world.

Answer 2

You re all over the place with this question. The only reply of any value one could give is that the Pentagon wants Americans to know the truth.

You apparently do not understand what a civil war is. Two factions attacking each other is a feud. A civil war is an attempt to overthrow a government by the citizens. That is not the case in Iraq.

Do you think everytime fists are thrown at a soccer match that
the country is in a civil war? How ridiculous.

Since Iraq is not in a state of civil war the rest of your questions are moot.

The Pentagon does not dictate what people should or should not think.

What in the world do you mean in you "Ps"? I am doing my best to understand this. Look, the free flow of oil at fair market prices is very much in the intererst of, not only the U.S. but all of the free world.

What does ones age, sex or political leaning have to do with facts?



.

Answer 3

The idea of civic upheaval means that there will be a longer ongoing conflict. An conflict that is ongoing, is very difficult to sell to the American people.

It is much easier to gain support for a war that is going well, a war with an end in sight and a war where the people are accepting of their new circumstances.

There is a great deal of sectarian violence that was not present in Iraq prior to American intervention. It just add a new level of complexity to the mission, which will in turn require more man power, more money and more time to pacify the people and ease the situation. It is bad publicity. That is why the Pentagon would rather the American people be ignorant to the current situation in Iraq.

Answer 4

The Pentagon would prefer a tidy little war with only the insurgents (terrorists to the cons) as the bad guys. This makes their PR job easier and might tend to keep the true loony bin religious nuts out of the conflict. Plus they and Bush the C in C are embarrassed by the fact the civil war wouldn't have started if we hadn't invaded. Spin is not an alien concept to the President or the Military.

Answer 5

I'm a male 52 conservative leaning veteran. As mentioned by tinker a civil war is between countrymen. She forgot to add without outside agitators that have their own agenda.

The pentagon sees the outside instigators that are making use of the tribal nature of religious factions.

For the Iraqis to come out better than when they were under Saddam, the press is going to have to challenge their ego to have a vested interest in their country's success as a hole.

Answer 6

How, pray tell, can you ask such a empty-headed question and NOT expect "snide remarks"? Here's the short answer: our preemptive war against Iraq caused the civil war and no one in the Pentagon has the backbone to admit it. That's why the Pentagon--under direction from Dubya--denies it. Get it?

Answer 7

A civil war is between countrymen, and Iraq doesn't fit that since outsiders are doing the killing. Why does the media want you to believe it is a civil war instead of the truth?

Answer 8

Because Bush, who is the top-ranking military official in this country, keeps telling us that Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war.

I am female, my age is none of your concern, and I am a liberal.

Answer 9

Maybe because it is not in a civil war.

Answer 10

What is the date on your newspaper? You're off by about a year.