It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

Is Iraq in the middle of a civil war? Former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi thinks so. George Will thinks so. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney sees nothing of the sort. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agrees with the Vice President. President Bush is way ahead of both the Vice President and the Secretary and sees victory looming on the horizon.

In an earlier post I had discussed the opposing views of the crisis offered by Donald Rumsfeld and George Will. I had suggested that the Administration might take this opportunity to discuss with the American people more candidly what the situation in Iraq is like. However, it appears that the Administration has decided to give no quarter. Everyone has come out forcefully with the same talking points. It’s their story and they are sticking to it.

I am reminded of Fonzi from the sitcom "Happy Days". He just could not come out and say he was sorry. The word would stick in his throat and the most he could say was "I’m s-s-s-o-o-o..". The Administration and its allies cannot seem to utter the words "civil war". It would be comical if the situation were not so tragic. Allawi states that about 50 to 60 Iraqis are dying per day and he thinks this means "civil war". I’ll grant that Allawi benefits from screaming "fire" because he sorely needs to get back in the game. However, it seems to me 50 to 60 people being killed per day in sectarian violence smells like civil war. That is up to 420 people killed per week; 1800 people killed per month; 21,900 people killed per year. The United States military lost 58,226 men and women in action in Vietnam from 1964 to 1975. That is about 5293 KIA per year in what was a shooting war. If the current Iraqi conflict rages 11 years, the Iraqi death toll will be, at the current rate, a staggering 240,900. By any stretch of the imagination, there is a war raging in Iraq. We may choose to call it a "fashion show" for all that matters, but by any name, it is a war.

The verbal gymnastics required to dance around the "civil war" issue is illustrated in The Washington Post article by a quote from British Defense Secretary John Reid:

Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there’s an increase in the sectarian killing, but there’s not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop

When does the Minister think the line will be crossed? And how will he not allow it to happen? Is there some hard line between sectarian killing and civil war? If there is, we would like to know where it lies so that everyone is on the same page. He follows that quote up with an unfortunate Orwellian statement:

The essential thing is to show maximum unity in a government of national unity so that the terrorists that do want a civil war do not get their wish.

Naturally, the government of national unity should maximize its "unityness".

The Vice President is also very confident that we are headed in the right direction:

I think we are going to succeed in Iraq, I think the evidence is overwhelming.

I am still hoping that the Administration will change course, not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of wisdom. Here’s Senator Hagel with some advice:

"It’s important that we stop this talk about we’re not going to leave until we achieve victory," said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

"We need some new thinking here," Hagel told ABC television.

We need to move beyond semantics and toward reasonable discourse and action.