NYT: we have agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war

[sabra]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003439273

<snip>

"After consulting with our reporters in the field and the editors who
directly oversee this coverage, we have agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war when they and their editors believe it is appropriate," Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, revealed in a statement sent to E&P. "It's hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. (See Ed Wong's story on the subject in Sunday's paper.)

"We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of "civil war" is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated."

[RagingInMiami]

1. In other words, it's a clusterfuck

"The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated."

[catnhatnh]

2. "It is not merely a Fuckup...

...it is,more acurately, seven KINDS of FUCKUPS..." said the NYT.