Given the latest news of close to 3,500 Iraqi civilians killed in July; I am wondering at what point the media or other politicians start labeling the situation in Iraq a civil war. I doubt that we'll ever hear those words come from anyone in the Bush camp. The numbers are hard to ignore. Since the first of the year the best estimate of Iraqi civilians killed is 17,776. In July alone the death toll averaged 110 a day.

A recent report from the south side of Baghdad interviewed men whose job it was to pull bodies from the river. Families who have lost loved ones to sectarian violence anywhere north of the city often come to his area to see if their missing is among those pulled from the river. There are far too many bodies to even investigate each murder. One man who was interviewed said that many bodies show signs of severe torture and mutilation.

Amidst this news Bush held a lunch yesterday at the Pentagon with academics and military advisors in order to get a better handle on the degrading situation. Several people reported to the NY Times that the President was upset that the Iraqi government was not publicly appreciative of what the United States is doing in Iraq. One thing in particular that bothered him was that as many as 10,000 people gathered in Baghdad to celebrate Hezbollah's victory with the signing of the cease fire.

I am more than concerned that the President, now more than ever, is completely unable to understand the religious and ethnic conflict in Iraq. The fact that he can't understand why Iraqi people are not supportive of the United State's mission underlines how is ideologic myopia doesn't allow him to see the reality of day to day life for many civilians. Even though Iraq is technically free now, many civilians would apparently give up this "freedom" for the relative safety of Saddam's regime. At least during Saddam's reign ordinary civilians did not need worry about their friends and family dying at the rate of over 100 a day.

So at what point do we start thinking and referring to the situation as a civil war? We all have seen the power of the Republican party's ability to frame any debate in their own language. It has worked well in the tax cut debate, the "war on terror" and especially in campaigns. The downside to the simplicity of their language seems to be that they have blinded themselves with their own words. If you can't even begin use the appropriate language to discuss the situation how can you ever pretend to understand the conflict? I strongly believe that although "successful" in the last decade, the Republican party, and Bush's camp in particular, has made it impossible to engage the public in a real conversation about the Iraq war. If all of the deaths are a result of "those who hate freedom," insurgents, and terrorists then we have already eliminated the ability to view this conflict as an evolving civil war. The Republican ideology and language clearly cannot account for a situation as complex as that in Iraq. If Bush can't grasp why the Iraqi government and people are not praising the US mission on a daily basis he clearly will not be able to understand how close we are to losing this war and making Iraq into exactly what we had hoped to prevent.

I'm starting to think that you don't call a civil war a civil war until it's over.

Not correct, B.

There was a piece on NPR this morning about a TV show that aired on Iraqi TV this past weekend. An interview show featuring a well known Sunni political leader and a well-known Shi'ite leader. The one thing they were in complete agreement about was that Iraq is in the early stages of a "civil war", and they called it such. This was the first time that the violence, that has really been building unabated since February, has been acknowledged for what it truly is by Iraqi political leaders in such a public forum.

The Iraqis know what time it is, it's just Bush who has his head up his ass, as usual.

Looks like it's time to raise the alert level, how does level orange sound?

what's so civil about war anyway?

Interesting point. If you were to ask the Confederate States of America in 1863 what war they were fighting, they would have stated, "The second American Revolution." To them, a civil war is a war fought within one country. They had already believed themselves to be a seperate country.

I don't know what Iraqi's think, but I would believe that they care much more for their religious group (Shiite or Sunni) than they do for the country of Iraq.

You'd think the liberal mainstream media would look for any chance to undermine the mission in Iraq.

I'm surprised they haven't been calling it a civil war since, well, since it started. Instead we get hot buzzwords like 'sectarian violence.'

I would guess that since there are no "boundries" between the sections of the population that are slaughtering each other and no organized troop movements, there is hesitation to call it a civil war.

Also, if it's a civil war doesn't American policy require us to stay the heck out of it? Perhaps that's what we need to get the troops home. Everyone start calling ti a civil war so that the media switched too.

I would think that would be a BETTER reason to call it a civil war. The American Civil war with a straight North v. South geographic distribution is the exception, not the rule. Usually it is "brother fighting brother" as they say. Look at Spain.

Yeah, I don't think there is going to be much troop movement. It will probably just be random bomb after random bomb.