In a popular diary today, thereisnospoon again pointed out that Iraq is not a war, it's an occupation, and we're not going to understand the options for ending it until we face the truth.
Suppose a gang tries to rob your house. You stop them with stealth, force, and your home field advantage, and kill some of them, but can't quite get them out of your house or summon police. They're in for a while.
Now suppose eventually a couple of people in your family get tired or get bribed and are caught helping the gang. They get shot along with the occupiers.
At that moment the police finally call back.
Do you report an ongoing attack by a gang?
Or do you report "domestic violence" that's being limited and managed by a well-intentioned but incompetent gang? The gang loves this report, of course. It practically guarantees that no one will demand they leave and no one will come to help.
That's what the "civil war" frame is.
Calling Iraq's violence a civil war is about as helpful in getting us out as calling our Vietnam attack a civil war 40 years ago.
The politicians and media leverage ignorance and racism by framing what's happening in Iraq as mainly sectarian violence. Except, the last major mosque that was attacked in Najaf was almost two years ago. Most of the attacks have been on police recruiting stations, markets, and convoys. They're not about Sunni vs. Shia - they're about friends of Americans vs. independent Iraqis.
We're never reminded that every Sunni and all of Al Sadr's majority Shiite faction are in agreement that the Americans are the problem and they should leave. A multi-sect 80% of the population - practically everyone who's not being paid by the Americans, and even some that are - want us out.
We must face facts and call the Iraq conflict an occupation. When we call Iraq a civil war we're actually playing into the hands of the politicians who are keeping us there.