WHEN YOU DEPOSE THE SUNNI DICTATOR OF A SHI'A STATE...:

“Civil War” Doesn't Mean It’s Over: What's so wrong with taking sides? (Jonah Goldberg, 5/18/07, National Review)

The assumption behind this gambit is obvious: Declaring it a civil war is like blowing a whistle at the end of the game. There’s nothing left to do but pack up the equipment and go home.

Al Qaeda in Iraq (and perhaps the Iranians) have clearly figured this out. That’s why they consistently try to stoke sectarian passions by, for example, bombing the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraq’s holiest Shia shrine. That 2006 attack prompted the formation of Shiite militias and death squads, which in turn provided fresh evidence that Iraq was heading toward civil war.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has been desperate to keep the press from describing the situation in Iraq as a “civil war,” for the obvious reason that the administration will lose its remaining support if the American public thinks this is just a civil war.

OK, but here’s what I don’t get: Why? Why is it obvious that intervening in a civil war is not only wrong, but so self-evidently wrong that merely calling the Iraqi conflict a civil war closes off discussion?

...you've already taken sides in the civil war.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 18, 2007 6:51 AM