There’s the war, and there’s the war about what to call the war.

So is the conflict in Iraq a civil war? Yes, according to The Los Angeles Times, NBC News, most correspondents at CNN, The New York Times and increasingly more media outlets.

No, according to the White House. “I hear people say, ‘Well, civil war this, civil war that,’” the President said in August. “The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box and a unity government is working to respond to the will of the people.”

There's more to Crikey than you think.

Get more Crikey for just $199 $99.

Subscribe now

The semantics are vitally important to the President, of course, because he will find himself defending the indefensible if America is officially seen to be fighting on this scale in another country’s civil war for no apparent reason. And the same applies to Australia’s involvement.

Like almost everything else about this war – its genesis, its conduct and its spin — the debate about what to call the Iraq conflict is farcical. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck … it’s a civil war.

There's more to Crikey than you think.

It’s more than a newsletter. It’s where readers expect more – fearless journalism from a truly independent perspective. We don’t pander to anyone’s party biases. We question everything, explore the uncomfortable and dig deeper.

And now you get more from your membership than ever before.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Get more and save 50%