Kurtz Knocks Out Lauer Like Ali Knocked Out Sunni Liston
November 28, 2006 at 10:19 am
On Washington Post radio WTWP this morning, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Journalism Howard Kurtz discussed Matt Lauer and NBC News deciding that Iraq is a civil war. Kurtz was hardly diplomatic or cordial in his reaction. Some Kurtz excerpts:
- “Secretary of State Matt Lauer making his own declaration”
- Monday’s repetitive coverage of NBC News of itself “began to feel a little bit like a gimmick.”
- It was a way for NBC “to get publicity for NBC News.”
Indeed, Lauer’s no expert. But here’s one who is, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley: “Iraqis don’t talk of it as a civil war; the unity government doesn’t talk of it as a civil war.”
BlogDog said,
November 28, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Shouldn’t that be “Sonny” Liston?
Alex said,
November 28, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Well, if Stephen Hadley says it, then gosh, it MUST be true! Because surely he has no political agenda!
I agree with Kurtz about NBC clearly turning this in to a political stunt, but come on — you’re really offering Hadley as your proof that there’s no civil war? Are you deranged?
David said,
November 28, 2006 @ 11:56 am
Unity government? Who still believes that fiction?
Alex said,
November 28, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Sorry, I just realized I said “political stunt” when what I really meant was “ratings stunt.” Clearly a ratings stunt by NBC. However, that doesn’t change the fact on the ground that Iraq is, and has been, in a civil war.
Not Katie Couric said,
November 28, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
Lauer is a messenger boy. Attacking Lauer for his want of foreign policy expertise–when it wasn’t his decision to deploy the term “civil war,” but the decision of his superiors–seems overly defensive, undermining the credibility of your response. Lay out your reasons for disputing the accuracy of the label to the situation in Iraq, certainly, but don’t rely on the false characterization that “Lauer spoke ex cathedra while unqualified as a bishop.”
Jim,MtnViewCA,USA said,
November 28, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
“…you’re really offering Hadley as your proof that there’s no civil war?”
I believe the writer is offering the Iraqi people and the Iraqi gov’t as his proof. He is quoting Hadley, you can argue that Hadley is incorrect. So give us a list of Iraqi leaders who describe the situation as a civil war. Compare it to the list of leaders who do not describe it that way.
Is it only Lauer and his ilk who make this claim? Hmmm.
edh said,
November 28, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
For those, including Lauer, who say Iraq is in a state of civil war, could you please name for me the commanders of each side? Seems to me a “journalist” shouldn’t be justified in declaring a civil war exists unless they can name who is actually commanding the forces at battle. Also, if you use the strict definition of civil war, Iraq has been in one well before the overthrow of Saddam. The only change now is Saddam’s Baathist Sunni minority doesn’t have all the guns and a monopoly on violence.
Jeff Cole, Marine Rifleman (Ret) said,
November 28, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
Check out this link to an article by John Keegan.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/printarticle.php?id=7951
Neither Matt Lauer nor all the collective minds at NBC know more about warfare than John Keegan. I think Keegan settles the discussion…
Grumpy said,
November 28, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
Keegan’s article is excellent, Jeff. Why would you think an explanation by someone who knows what he is talking about would settle any discussion about Iraq? Have you seen an, “Oh. I see”, from Alex or Not Katie here?
mailman said,
November 28, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
I think I saw Iraqi police captain Jamil Hussein quoted in an AP story that he thought it was a civil war, and it was confirmed in the New York Times by an Iraqi man on the street, Greg al-Packer.
40YearOldVersion said,
November 28, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Why the defensiveness on whether civil war is the proper label for what’s happening in Iraq? What does it matter what you call out of control and escalating internal political and sectarian violence? What stake does anyone have in opposing the term? Is there some kind of governing body that defines what conditions need to exist before civil war is declared and media outlets can begin to use that term? Of course not. How about we just call it an absolute horror show if you’re opposed to the term civil war? Or does anyone wish to refute that charectarization also? As for who some of the leaders are, Moktada al-Sadr comes to mind with his mahdi militia and his 30 seats in the “unity government”. A little searching will turn up prominent names representing other factions, edh. If you really care to know. The real flaw with the civil war term is that it calls to mind past wars that were dominated by just two large factions which made it easier to pick sides. The diversification of violence in Iraq makes the whole mess harder to mediate or interdict against so it’s worse than that kind of civil war if you think we’re now obligated to “win” this war.
TM Lutas said,
November 28, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
If this government falls, and it might fall later this week if Sadr pulls out, we could have new elections in 2007. This might not be a bad thing because *if there is no civil war* and the whole Iraqi people participate, a better set of politicians might enter government.
submandave said,
November 28, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
What difference does it make if you call a drive-by a shooting or a massacre? Words have meanings and convey an emotional tennor; it is upon this basis that we choose our words. So while there may be no fixed guidelines or an international body to certify and sanction a conflict as a “Civil War”, like many I find the profligate use of that term to be rank hyperbole.
Commonly a civil war is characterized by the armies of two (or more) established political governing bodies competing for control of the same area. Please identify the multiple recognized political bodies in Iraq. Please identify the conflict by armies. What I see is an insurgency, where small loosely affiliated militias take violent action against either government forces, government supporters or other small loosely affiliated militias. Actually, it is at least three insurgencies happening simultaneously (Sunni hard-liners supported by Syria, Shi’ia militia supported by Iran and Jihadi mujahedeen supported by Al Qeda and possibly others). A fourth wild-card are the criminal element who are often indistinguisable from insurgents in their action but tend to work for whomever has the $$$.
I don’t think I have my head in the sand. I recognize that the current level of violence is a problem, a significant and challenging problem, and it is very high, but using the term “civil war” to describe it does several counter productive things: it conveys more legitimacy upon the insurgent elements than they deserve; it incorrectly conveys an idea of unity among various elements that does not necessarilly exist; it imprecisely diagnoses the problem, possibly leading to bad choices in dealing with the poblems faced; and it falsely creates an impression of greater and more widespread violence than exists.
submandave said,
November 28, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Personally, I think one of the best things that could happen is for Sadr and his goons to actually establish a competing government and make the conflict a real civil war, because then the gloves can come off and the Badr brigade and all those other Shi’ia imam’s private armies can be openly engaged and crushed.
JimboNC said,
November 28, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
I agree with submandave on his last point. Maybe the administration and the Pentagon are thinking the same thing: waiting for a shake-out of smaller factions resulting in more decisive devisions we can take down and get on with it. The waiting game is what is killing homeland support.
Idly Awed said,
November 28, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
If we see either the Sunnis, Shia, or Kurds (and perhaps corresponding segments of the military)withdraw from the government - we will officially have a civil war. No secession yet, which would keep the current strife in the “sectarian violence” category. Sort of the default state of tribal societies which either don’t have an autocratic strongman maintaining order via an iron fist, or which have yet to collectively adopt a peaceful democratic / parliamentary system.
It could still go either way, but Iran / Syria / al Queda / the militias certainly have their own agendas.
JimboNC said,
November 28, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Matt Lauer = NBC’s Borat!
40YearOldVersion said,
November 28, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
It’s nice to have the physical and emotional remove (unless you have relatives serving there) that allows us to debate semantics here. Imagine if sectarian violence were running rampant in the US and people were being blown up, shot, found in the street dead and riddled with drill holes, women and children dying, police and military personnel murdered by insurgents. If violence like that in Iraq were affecting a similar % of the US population it would be thousands dying on a given day and were we all lucky enough to still be alive would we be debating whether we were involved in a civil war or some other fresh hell that doesn’t even have a scholarly label yet? Would we care what John Keegan called our awful reality? Maybe some other nation’s bloggers could do that for us and convince us it’s not that widespread or that great. That would sure be a relief. As for the various Shia forces coming out into the open so we can take them out, yeah wouldn’t that be as great as it is unlikely? It would be a more textbook example of civil war but easier to deal with than what’s actually happening. But does it mean we’d then be fighting on the side of the Sunnis? Which Sunnis? The secular baathists or the wahabbists?
Hankmeister said,
November 28, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Matt Lauer as Secretary of State is like Pat Paulson for President. What a joke.
BTW, when will people realize that what we’re seeing in Iraq as well as the Middle East is a failure of Islam to live up to its billing as a “religion of peace”? If Islam is so peaceful and efficacious, then why are Muslims murdering Muslims in the most awful manner in Iraq? Blaming President Bush or American “interventionism” is merely a sophisticated way of saying “the devil (Great Satan America) is making them do it”? I ain’t buying such philosphical claptrap.
Look around the world, we see Muslims murdering and beheading Christians in the name of Allah, Muslims murdering Buddhists, Muslims murdering Hindus, Muslims murdering Jews, Muslims murdering pagans, Muslims murdering atheists/seculars and Muslims murdering one another EXPLICITLY IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE KORAN, AND MOHAMMED. Where do we see Jews slaughtering Hindus or Christians murdering Buddhists explicitly (or even circuitously) in the name of Jehovah?
Even during America’s own Civil War you didn’t find Episcopaleans murdering Lutherans in the name of Jehovah (though one can imagine some individuals may have operated in such a manner) but rather men were dying on both sides as a result of their belief in political principles, not religious sectarianism. The Civil War is not an indictment of Christianity though the vast majority of soldiers in the North and South were indeed Christians … each side was fighting for what they thought was the great principle of liberty as well as states rights vs. federalism. Not so in Iraq, there we are seeing pure ISLAMIC SECTARIANISM as the catalyst for this fratricidal violence. So why isn’t Islam the oil upon troubled waters particularly since boths sides are murdering explicitly in the name of their religious ideology.
And for those who say Iraq is better off under Saddam because he could keep the lid on tribalism. What’s with that “logic”? Are we now to assume that Arabs living within the Islamic hegemony can only be kept “peaceful” under tyrants and mullah thugs? So where is this “religion of peace” which suppose to transcend not only race but also tribal fealty to bring an everlasting peace in a world governed by Allah’s law? I ain’t seein’ it. Where’s the outrage from the Islamic world over the fratricidal insanity which is happening before their very eyes? Oh, that’s right, it’s Great Satan America’s fault. Excuse me for wondering.
Gort said,
November 28, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Matt, you’re glib! GLIB!
David Foster said,
November 28, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Listening to all those talkeing heads reminds me of the phrase “dumb as a Rock”. Also i believeit was Lincoln that said “is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak out and remove all doubt.
Neal J. King said,
November 28, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
I’m missing the point here on why some people are at such pains to make that case that what is going on in Iraq right now is not a civil war. Someone draws up a set of criteria that he claims defines a civil war, points out that the mess in Iraq fails to satisfy it, and, voila! No civil war!
But when looking at the way that the mess fails to meet these criteria, I see that Iraq fails to be a civil war, by these standards, because it is even messier than what we have gotten used to thinking of as a civil war: nastier, more out-of-control, and with even fewer clear-cut lines along which a settlement could be sought.
I don’t quite see what anyone gets out of saying, “Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war.” Except for one person: George W. Bush. He can, and does, claim that what is going on is due to the ongoing interference of al-Qaeda, and thus relate this to the famous War on Terror. Maybe this makes him feel better. My personal feeling is that, even if this was initiated by al-Qaeda, it seems likely to me that it has reached (or will shortly reach) a tipping point, beyond which lies, if you don’t want to call it a civil war, then a formless nightmare of struggle and brutality, that is likely to go on even after the last real al-Qaeda member in Iraq has been stabbed and dumped by the side of the road.
The real horror of the situation may be that, by the time the al-Qaeda are gone, no one will even notice. They’ll be too busy not-having a civil war.
Lorenzo said,
November 28, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
Nice play on words, turning Sonny Liston into “Sunni”. Too bad Ali knocked him out with a phantom punch.
When I was in Jr. High, now a “middle” school, Historians didn’t think our civil war met their definition, and tried to call it the “War Between the States”. But Lincoln crossed them: he DIDN’T say “Now we are engaged in a great war between the states…” did he?
Since Iraq has no Lincoln (or Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Madison, for that matter), maybe we can recycle the historians’ hubris and call it the “War Between the Sects”. It doesn’t matter whether it’s accurate, since there’s no term for jockeying for position for a future power grab.
JAL said,
November 28, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Well, Terry Moran on ABC NightLine Monday night started out singing the same song… the British have lost Basra, the Kurds are arming for more of whatever, Baghdad is blowing up (videos provided). I actually turned it off before I found out if he really believed it, or offered some kind of perspective.
I have so little trust of the MSM these days.
red said,
November 28, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
…after the last real al-Qaeda member in Iraq has been stabbed and dumped by the side of the road…
I call that progress. The particular faction that wants to devastatingly attack the US proper is getting its a$$ kicked in Iraq. Maybe the guy you describe is there now and waiting for the knife with his name on the blade.
jay said,
November 28, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
The semantics and perception matter, because the enemy (Al Quada, et al) makes it matter. They studied Vietnam well. The more dire it can be made to sound, the less willing we as Americans will be to tough it out and outlast them. Imagine them giggling and smirking at us, as we waste energy blaming each other.
I urge my brothers and sisters on the left of the aisle, and I mean that truly and in all seriousness, to turn aside the bitterness of division, and unite, and fight in spirit and resolve against the real enemies of our freedoms, and help foster the beginnings of this new democracy and the people of Iraq. After all, isnt that what really matters?
“Persistance is omnipotent.” -Calvin Coolidge
Knemon said,
November 28, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
“Which Sunnis? The secular baathists or the wahabbists?”
Post-GWI, these two groups started to merge …
Richard Aubrey said,
November 29, 2006 @ 9:48 am
The Battle of The Label has a real purpose.
It’s a given that we can’t win and thus shouldn’t be involved in a civil war.
Thus, if the current unpleasantness can be labeled a “civil war”, we can’t win and must quit.
The facts of the case are not an issue, only whether the label can be imposed, because the given is given. No arguments apply. Civil war=we must quit.
Thus, the Battle of The Label is of huge importance.
That the given isn’t necessarily true is of absolutely no relevance.
40YearOldVersion said,
November 29, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
So maybe the proper label is Richard’s “the current unpleasantness”. That’s rich and it makes me feel a lot better than “civil war” or “maelstrom of anarchic violence”.
No question the battle of the label has a purpose. The purpose is crystal clear in some of these last few posts and in the White House’s immediate reaction to NBC’s use of the term. If we don’t call it civil war then maybe we can trick people into believing that this is a straight up fight between the US and terrorists. What does the administration gain for us by winning that rhetorical battle except more of the same? Instead of debating the technical accuracy of the term civil war the honest approach would be to argue against the “given” and assert that we can still win and to lay out how. And Jay, I’m all ears because the current mess is so f–ng depressing but the fervor with which the rhetorical battle is being fought doesn’t give me confidence. How does the US win or lose a fight between Sunnis and Shiites and somebody please tell me who amongst the emerging powers there we want to support?
Dennis said,
November 29, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Why attack Lauer? Oh I see - because you couldn’t actually dispute that Iraq is in a civil war. You know, like it has been for hundreds of years. We ain’t drinking that Kool-Aid anymore.
Yes, it was a cold war while Saddam Hussein was in power - kind of, because he repressed the fight between the Sunnis and the Shia and the many variations thereof. That repression now another reason for the Shia to attack and repress the Sunni - in addition to their religious differences.
It doesn’t now matter why the US went into Iraq; we opened Pandora’s box and now this civil war dominates the conflict. We broke it, now we own it. But it’s a civil war - yeah, it really is.
US policy toward Iraq is now an unconscionable attempt to save face at the expense of our troops, Iraqi civilians and our country’s wealth - and at the expense of doing what we really need to do to secure our homeland. We aren’t fighting them in Iraq so that we don’t fight them here - we ain’t drinking that Kool-Aid anymore.
This Republican vowed when the war started that if the imminent threat turned out to be false - i.e. weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorists plotting against the US - that I would never vote for another Republican candidate for anything as long as George W. Bush was in office. Finally, this past November, it’s clear that most of us aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid anymore.
Whatever real threats face the US, the war in Iraq is not and was not the frontline; and we now need to turn our resources to the real fight and under different leadership.
BJ said,
November 29, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
It is clear that the naysayers in this thread believe quitting Iraq is an viable option. Setting aside the global economical disaster that would result if regional chaos ensues and the flow oil is disrupted; Europe’s economy is already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Perhaps they can explain how handing Iraq off to to Iran would create stability in the region? Are you willing to watch Iran perpetrate genocide on Israel? How about the Kurds or Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt’s Christian sects? Who is expendable? Where exactly would you draw a defensible line? The Balkans? Europe? South America? Mexico?
Do you think Russia, China and India are going to sit idly by as internecine tribal war spreads towards their borders?
Since the demise of the USSR and 9/11; the Cold War paradigm of MAD, or 1938’s biggest hit, containment and appeasement (read UN jawboning) no longer apply. We have been in a hot war since 2000, it simply took 9/11 for us to recognize it as such.
For the first time since those scary days in Oct 1962 I fear we are on the threshold of the demise of our society. Not from without, but within as we are in a cold civil war among ourselves.