FRAMESHOP:FRAMESHOP: THE FRAMING WAR OVER "CIVIL WAR"

"Sectarian Violence" is latest attempt by Bush officials to fog up America's understanding of Iraq.  Iraq is not a "civil war," they insist.  It is just full of "sectarian violence."  In their White House press conference on Monday, Tony Snow and Steve Hadley used the magic words "sectarian violence" over and over again in what was clearly a planned attempt to reframe the debate away from the phrase "civil war." 

Why all this repeating of the phrase "sectarian violence" of late?  More car bombings in Baghdad?  Moqtada al-Sadir stirring up trouble?  Nope.  The fuss is over something Matt Lauer said the other day on the Today Show:  that Iraq was now in a "civil war."

While obvious to most Americans, the change in phrasing by NBC has serious implications for political debate in this country.  If Americans begin to frame Iraq in terms of a "civil war," then they will also begin to perceive U.S. soldiers as being "trapped" in a deadly situation--leading, inevitably, to widespread calls for U.S. soldiers to leave the fight to the Iraqis and come home.

The Today Show Bombshell
On Monday morning--before dishing out some leftover turkey recipes and reporting the latest gossip on Britney and Paris--Matt Lauer announced that his network had made the decision to start calling the situation in Iraq a "civil war" based on this logic:

after careful consideration, NBC News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation is Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war.

(from article by DAVID BAUDER, AP, Nov. 28, 2006)

As Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page put it, this change showed that NBC had a "keen grasp of the obvious," but apparently it was much more than that.  Lauer's announcement was the big story on Monday and sent panic through the Bush Administration, forcing them to respond with an aggressive framing campaign.

Now, listening to all this, what I find fascinating is the fight over the phrase "civil war."  Why does the phrase "civil war" being used by a morning TV host scare the Bush White House even more than the violence in Iraq?

The Checklist Technique
The answer to that question seems to be that the phrase "civil war" makes it clear for the American public as to what is happening in Iraq.   And that clarity terrifies the Bush administration.

Keeping in mind Matt Lauer's definition of a civil war (above), consider this exchange between a White House reporter, Steve Hadley and Tony Snow at Monday's Press conference--notice how Hadley and Snow define what is and is not a "civil war":

Q Do you maintain it's still not a civil war in Iraq?

MR. HADLEY: Well, it's interesting, the Iraqis don't talk of it as a civil war; the unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war. And I think the things they point to when they say that are, one, that at this point in time the army and the police have not fractured along sectarian lines, which is what you've seen elsewhere; and the government continues to be holding together and has not fractured on sectarian terms.

But, look, the point is, it is what it is. There is a high level of sectarian violence. It is a challenge for the Iraqis.    It's a challenge for us. We need to be talking about a way forward and a strategy for dealing with it. And that's really what the President has been focusing on and where we need to focus -- how to deal with this particular challenge going forward.

Q -- the President fears that were he to --

MR. SNOW: -- (inaudible) -- civil war? No, but you have not yet had a situation also where you have two clearly defined and opposing groups vying not only for power, but for territory. What you do have is sectarian violence that seems to be less aimed at gaining full control over an area than expressing differences, and also trying to destabilize a democracy -- which is different than a civil war, where two sides are clashing for territory and supremacy.

(full transcript here)

So, according to Hadley, the situation is not a "civil war" because:

1. The government in Iraq does not use that phrase
2. The police in Iraq have not fractured along sectarian lines
3. The government has not fractured along sectarian lines

Those are Hadley's three conditions.  But keep in mind: Hadley's list is not a real definition, but a framing technique.  It's the old "check list" trick that the White House loves to use to tell the American public that things which are clearly happening are not in fact happening.  Torture?  Nope--because this is torture (1, 2, 3, etc.).  Illegal wiretapping?  Nope--because this is what the President can do (1, 2, 3, etc.).  Any time the White House starts giving us these lists of conditions for when we can and cannot call a spade a spade, Americans should pay close attention because it's a clear sign that they are trying to spin something.

But what about Tony Snow's definition of a "civil war" in the press conference?  Snow set three conditions that were slightly different than those set by Hadley:

1. Two clearly defined and opposing groups
2. Groups must be vying for power
3. Groups must be vying for territory

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, the word "vying" according to the Oxford American Dictionary means "competing eagerly with someone in order to do or achieve something."

So, not to be too picky, but according to Tony Snow's definition, a football game is a civil war ("It's war, I tellya,  WAR!!!).   

But again, the point of going over Hadley's and Snow's definitions is not to see if their definitions are the best.  They're not.  The point is to reveal this "checklist" technique as an attempt by the White House to control the debate.

What Is A "Civil War"
The greatest weapon against White House framing in this case is that pesky little book called the dictionary.

According to Dictionary.com, a "civil war" is remarkably simple to define.  The overall definition they provide is just one clear sentence:

civil war 
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

But they also give a more extensive understanding of the phrase that should make everyone say "hmmm..." to themselves if not out loud:

civil war
n.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.

Now, notice that the dictionary simply defines a civil war as a war between factions or regions in the same country--a definition that most Americans also use.  In other words, if we are talking about a "war" that means a conflict between countries.  If we are talking about a "civil" war, that means conflict inside a country.  Seems simple enough (unless your Tony Snow and Steve Hadley).

So is Iraq in a civil war?  Yes.

Civil War Frame Leaves U.S. Troops "In The Middle"

The problem that the "civil war" frame creates for the Bush administration actually comes from the simplicity of the definition and the logical question that arises out of it:

If there's a war between factions in Iraq, what the heck are American troops doing in all of this?

Here again we might actually return to the White House "checklist" trick to show what the options are.  If it's a civil war between factions all inside Iraq, then it seems that these are the only possible explanations for what the U.S. military is currently doing in Iraq:

1. Fighting on behalf of one side of the civil war
2. Fighting on behalf of the other side in the civil war
3. Trapped in the middle, trying to avoid getting killed in the crossfire

These choices are what the Bush administration fears because they are grim choices.  If, for example, we are fighting on behalf of one side of a civil war--what is the logic behind deciding to join one side in the age-old feuds between groups in Iraq?  Why one side and not the other?   Even worse, if the U.S. military is fighting on behalf of one side of a civil war in Iraq, that would mean that President Bush had put our soldiers under the command of a foreign power--big problem.

But the grimmest choice of all is number 3:  Caught in the middle. The spread amongst American TV viewers of the idea that our soldiers are "caught in the middle" of a war that does not involve us--this is what I suspect the Bush team is trying desperately to avoid.   Why?  Because Americans believe very deeply in the idea that serving in the military is rooted in the principle, as Lincoln put it, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  Defense of that principle is why American soldiers are willing to sacrifice their lives and American families are willing to support their sons and daughters going to war.  Being caught in the middle of another nation's ideological turf wars?  That is not the basis for military service, but the basis for leaving.

The Specter Raised By "Civil War" - The "Trapped" Frame
What we see, ultimately, in this civil war over the phrase "civil war" is a struggle by the White House to prevent the "trapped" frame from taking over the debate about Iraq.  And if that happens, the public will grow more and more impatient with talk of the "war on terror,"  "standing up" Iraqi soldiers, and so forth.  And if that happens, Matt Lauer's Today Show announcement will lead to rising perception amongst Americans that our soldiers are caught between the opposing sides of a battle that does not involve them. Caught in the middle, trying to avoid being killed. 

In that logic, common sense dictates that U.S. soldiers should dramatically change not only what they are doing, but where they are--to get out from between the sides of the civil war.

And that path, that frame, leads to one place and one place only:  widespread belief that American soldiers are dying not in defense of democracy, but simply because they are trapped in the cross-fire of a civil war.  And down that road lies popular outrage against U.S. involvement in Iraq. 

© 2006 Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop