Part 2: Why is it important to recognize that Iraq is in a civil war:

One of the biggest problems with America’s view of the Vietnam conflict was its perception of it as a war between democracy and communism; freedom versus tyranny, good versus evil. From the moment Stewart Alsop wrote of a domino effect, with the fall of Vietnam leading to the fall of all Southeast Asia and more of the free world falling under Soviet/Chinese communist dominance, the American people were convinced they had to save South Vietnam if they were to save themselves. Not surprisingly, this is the same way Iraq is portrayed to the American people. 9/11 and Saddam are not confused by accident and it is no surprise that most soldiers in Iraq are misled to believe they are fighting the people behind that heinous act. Any country at war understands the importance of popular support and engineering the media to foment that support. It is no surprise that the media of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both proclaimed their countries were on the verge of victory right up to the flames lapping Hitler’s corpse and the brief pause before Hirohito addressed his citizens with the truth. We may be a democracy, but we are not immune from this need to manipulate the media to manufacture public support for foreign entanglements.

Had Americans known that our involvement in Vietnam was not in defense against Soviet or Chinese expansion, but a civil war between the popularly supported Ho Chi Minh against the last vestiges of French colonial government, it is likely the public would have demanded we withdraw and leave the Vietnamese to decide their fate. Call the Iraq conflict a civil war and people will start asking the real questions: Why are we there and what can we accomplish by being there?

If you, the media, continue to insist that Iraq is not in civil war, but on the verge of civil war and only our presence is preventing this catastrophe, then the civil war will rage around us, in spite of our presence, and thousands of lives lost from now, the American people will still not have the slightest idea of what the hell hit us.

Part 3: What can America do or not do to end the civil war?

American troops on the ground have two choices: They can take a side in the war or they can attempt to suppress each side in an effort to force a peace. As long as we are there all three factions, Kurd, Shia and Sunni, will use us against the others. The Kurds will use us to protect their autonomy, the Shia will use us to suppress the Sunni, and the Sunni will use us to pretend their violence is designed to rid the country of foreign infidels. Our presence until recently kept the Shia from slaughtering the Sunnis. This is changing, and rapidly. Recently the government struck executions of Sunnis from its death count. They will grow more bolder. The Sunnis have managed to attract and make uneasy alliances with foreign groups such as Al Zarqawi who view this as an opportunity to attack the American military. They want us to stay to keep the Shias at bay and promote support for their cause as a nationalistic rather than ethnic struggle.

Our continuing occupation serves to give all three sides just enough support and resistance to ensure endless civil war. If we follow choice one, we would need to raise an army of over a million soldiers to occupy and rout any and all resistance in a bloody and vicious occupation not the likes were seen since Rome raised Carthage. We could take a side and risk that were that side to win, they might be either Muslim fundamentalist administration to rival Afganistan’s Taliban, or a weak government needing years of our support and occupation to protect their interests (like South Vietnam).

A third alternative might be to say we are leaving and unless they settle their differences the following will happen: 1) no nation will ever recognize any “country” carved out by the Kurds, 2) the majority of Shias will do to the minority Sunnis only what Saddam dreamed of doing to the Shias and Kurds, and 3) the Shias will set upon eachother with their different militias and fanatics before quelling the Sunnis, just like they did the last time which allowed Saddam to reach power. In short, there America will leave, there will be no Kurdistan, the Sunnis will not be cowed into submission, and the Shia infighting will only lead to next year’s Sunni Saddam.

This alternative may or may not work, but it is not even close to possible without recognizing the obvious: Iraq is in a civil war. This is where you, the media come in. Without your willingness to acknowledge that fact, even if local US military leaders were attempting this option, their leaders in Washington would not even deign to acknowledge their support, because they can’t admit the civil war exists.

For this last alternative to happen our country would need an administration either capable or forced to accept the reality of the existing civil war and the above listed alternatives. So long as we have an administration misled or incapable of escaping their own rhetoric these options will never see the light of day.

I don’t know if this is a cure, but if there is a chance, only if the media will admit Iraq is in a civil war, and confronts this administration to admit that fact can we even get to Part 2. (like I said, we can skip part 1. I was just being egotistical and trying to get a book deal before Doris Kearns Woodward McCullough beat me to it.)