How Stephen Hadley defines civil war
War experts to linguists have varying criteria for the term “civil war,” but they all have one common element - civilians of the same country, fighting against each other.
Stephen Hadley, the U.S. National Security Advisor, doesn’t see it that way. Hadley was on CNN’s Late Edition today, and this is his spin on the civil war in Iraq. (Iraq is not in a civil war according to Hadley.)
BLITZER: Let me read to you from the Defense Dept report of March 2 — on this getting close to the 4th anniversary of the war in Iraq. “Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a ‘civil war,’ including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence and population displacement. (Ed. note: “Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq”, Pentagon Report, March 2, 2007).
BLITZER: They’re acknowledging at least major parts of the fighting in Iraq right now are a civil war, which is not exactly what the U.S. public bought into, going into Iraq.
HADLEY: If you go back, there’s really not a lot new there, Wolf. If you look at the National Intelligence Estimate, the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community on Iraq that was issued here about six to eight weeks ago – it basically says civil war does not adequately characterize the struggle in Iraq. There are a lot of things going on. There is, there is Shia on Shia struggle. There is al Qaeda seeking to provoke sectarian violence. There is a, a, a considerable sectarian violence in, in, in significant measure as a result of al-Qaeda’s activity, particularly focused in Baghdad. So it’s a very complicated setting –
BLITZER: But the civil war part of it - give us your assessment. You’re the President’s National Security Adviser. Is this a civil war?
HADLEY: What we have is considerable sectarian violence. if you look at — if you ask Iraqis, for example – there’s just an opinion poll out in the press today. Iraqis don’t call it a civil war. if you talk to Iraqis, what they say is, it’s not a civil war, it’s a war against civilians, and that’s what you have to understand.
Hadley has provided a great display of ignorance and completely misrepresented what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) said about the war in Iraq. First, we can easily get the definition of civil war out of the way, then show how Hadley really screwed up the NIE.
A few definitions of civil war from various resources:
Cambridge - a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country
Wikipedia - A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.
Merriam-Webster - a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.
Britannica - a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Encarta - war within country: a war between opposing groups within a country
Okay, I think that’s clear, and the NIE will be just as easy.
Hadley implied the NIE indicated the situation in Iraq was not a civil war because it was too complex. What the NIE really says is the situation in Iraq is so bad it goes beyond a civil war - a civil war in Iraq, amongst other situations. Specifically the NIE says:
The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethnosectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements. (Emphasis added.)
Hadley is a political hack, that can’t even present a reasonable argument.
