Yo, folks - remember Lakoff's comments on how to frame Iraq?
He said it is not a war, but an occupation.
Well, actually, it is an
occupation and a civil war.
According to Nicholas Sambanis in
the NYTimes:
Has the conflict in Iraq turned into a civil war?
Civil wars are defined as armed conflicts between the government of a sovereign state and domestic political groups mounting effective resistance in relatively continuous fighting that causes high numbers of deaths....
Depending on the criteria used, there have been about 100 to 150 civil wars since 1945. Iraq is clearly one of them.
more on the flip
The insurgency started while Iraq was under foreign occupation, but it intensified since the handoff of sovereignty. The insurgents have been fighting continuously, violence affects all sides and there have been more than 30,000 civilian and military deaths, dwarfing the median number of 18,000 deaths for all civil wars since 1945.
Nevermind the fact that Iraq is still under foreign occupation and doesn't actually have sovereignty, given that the Iraqi government's reconciliation plan and call for a timetable for US troops to leave was overruled by the US.
So, you want to frame this? How about:
"It's time for the United States to recognize that it is inapproriate and wrong to continue its occupation of Iraq, when the country is in the middle of a civil war and when 87%of Iraqis have asked for a timetable for US troops to leave. The supposedly sovereign government of Iraq has requested a timetable for the troops to leave. We must respect the decision of the Iraqi people."