Great Moments In American Military History

October 19, 1781: British General Charles Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown.

 

 

April 9, 1865: With his retreat blocked, Robert E. Lee surrenders to Grant at Appomattox.

 

 

November 11, 1918: Representatives of France, Germany, and Britain meet in a train car outside the French town of Rethondes and sign the armistice that ends World War I.

 

 

September 2, 1945: Japanese officials formally surrender to allies aboard the U.S. battleship Missouri.

 

 

November 27, 2006: Some goofball on TV says he talked with "a lot of people" and checked the dictionary, thus making him an expert on the Iraq War, which he will now refer to as a "civil war".

 

 

Moments later: An unhinged old coot, appearing on the same TV show, claims he "knows Kung Fu", and that he was calling it a civil war "before it was even a war".

 

 

That evening: Asswipe on a cable news show confuses all three of his viewers when he explains that the conflict in Iraq is a civil war between "she-males and Moonies."

Whutever, d00d.

Thanks to Dan Collins for the idea.

 

Comments

[Jeff H]

You forgot the day the US MSM surrendered to Mother Sheehan's vision of the world.

[salvage]

The fact that you list all that and have a "mission accomplished" banner image is funnier than you'll ever know.

So Sparky, if sectarian forces killing each other in the same country isn't a civil war what is it then?

[John from WuzzaDem]

Oh my God, you're right! The irony of using the "Mission accomplished" banner (itself the subject of numerous "war time semantics" debates) completely escaped me until you pointed it out. Thanks for enlightening me.

As for the definition of a civil war, I think "sectarian forces killing each other in the same country" is a bit muddled, so maybe you can clarify for me - should the people fighting this "civil war" be from the same country? If so, that kinda screws the claims the left has been making that Iraq is the number one tourist spot for ME jihadists looking to relax while they knock off a few Americans (and maybe a fellow Muslim/Arab civilian or two or three or twenty), doesn't it?

If those non-Iraqis have now stopped pouring over the poorly guarded borders and all the fighting is between Iraqis battling for control of the country, then I must have missed Matt Lauer's report. He is the leading 'media expert' on Iraq, isn't he?

Anyway, I really hate to S-P-E-L-L things out for people, but I'll make an exception in your case: What's funny and/or pathetic is the media reporting that the media is changing the terminology it uses when reporting on the war. Get it? I didn't think so, but thanks for playing.

[Jeff H]

Salvage, "civil war" suggests a level of conflict that, by all historical precedent, is not present in Iraq today. Read some ofPaul Mirengoff's pieces over at Power Line. Some key points (and yes, some of them are semantical in nature):

1. "War" is when 2 or more armies take the field of battle opposing each other. The only "armies" in Iraq is the Coalition Forces and the Iraqi Defense Forces, and they are not opposing each other.

2. The level of killing taking place in Iraq, as bad as it seems, is not that much different from certain cities in the United States.

3. A further point, though not necessarily related to the question of whether or not Iraq is in a "civil war": The situation in Iraq cannot be meaningfully described absent the context of the larger conflict being waged worldwide by Islamonazi terrorists against Western civiliation.

Just my humble $25.02 worth.

[km]

My defition of civil war:

"After you."

"No, no, after you."

"Oh, I insist!"

"Age before beauty!"

"Get into the elevator, you stupid bastard!"

"Why you..."

Whereupon shots are fired and a multinational coalition assembled for an elevationary expedition. That's civil. This stuff going on in Iraq? Mean & nasty.

[Anon1]

As for the definition of a civil war, I think "sectarian forces killing each other in the same country" is a bit muddled, so maybe you can clarify for me - should the people fighting this "civil war" be from the same country? If so, that kinda screws the claims left has been making that Iraq is the number one tourist spot for ME jihadists looking to relax while they knock off a few Americans (and maybe a fellow Muslim/Arab civilian or two or three or twenty), doesn't it?
_____________________________________________________
Hardly. Of course, it has to be one or the other. It couldn't possibly be that Iraq is engaged in a civil war, and terrorists are in the mix, trying to make Iraq the success you so want it to be. And likewise, thanks for playing.

[The Word-Drum]

Insurgent#1: "We can't beat The Americans."
"What should we do?"

Insurgent#2: (He reads The NYT)"Civil War"
"It says we should make a Civil War"

Insurgent#1: "That will be easier than fighting
the infidels"

[John from WuzzaDem]

Of course, it has to be one or the other.

No, it doesn't, but it certainly would appear so now that NBC has made its historic announcement. Any bets on how many stories we'll be seeing about non-Iraqis being drawn to the country as a result of the war?

It couldn't possibly be that Iraq is engaged in a civil war, and terrorists are in the mix, trying to make Iraq the success you so want it to be.

It might be, but once again, you're missing the point of the post: It's a television network! You know TV, media, show biz, etc. Does it not strike you as the least bit bizarre that the people who are supposed to be reporting the news are making dramatic announcements about the terminology they use? And we're not talking about analysts, either - it's freaking Matt Lauer, AKA Mr. Couric, and he's trying to bolster his credibility by saying they "talked to a lot of people".

Is that what you call "serious" journalism?

And what is it with your "the success you want it to be" remark? What do you want Iraq to be? A failure?

[Beth]

John, you forgot "A troll on teh internets says he talked with "a lot of people" and checked the dictionary AND saw Matt Lauer say it on teevee, so he knows more than the entire U.S. military command and will now refer to the Iraq War as a 'civil war.'"
;-)

Really, the trolls parody themselves. Thanks, kids!

[John from WuzzaDem]

Beth, you forgot to capitalize INTERNETS.

[actus]

"1. "War" is when 2 or more armies take the field of battle opposing each other. The only "armies" in Iraq is the Coalition Forces and the Iraqi Defense Forces, and they are not opposing each other."

So there isn't even a war in Iraq? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

"2. The level of killing taking place in Iraq, as bad as it seems, is not that much different from certain cities in the United States."

Apparently not much math either.

OT, but I love your "Founder, Habitats for Hamas" Jimmah Kottah on the sidebar

[Gordon]

Matt said it, I want to believe it, that settles it.

[km]

Just remember: A troll trolls. Always!

[John from WuzzaDem]

How many trolls would a wood troll troll if a wood troll could troll...aw crap, I forgot how that ends.

[Gordon]

I think it's "ey ai ey ai o."

But I'm just guessing here.

[John from WuzzaDem]

I'm thinking it has something to do with a troll being "quite contrary", or maybe a curds-and-whey theme. I should check Wikipedia.

[EFG]

Actus, I was just wondering if you could explain these remarks you made.

http://patterico.com/2006/10/22/5297/byron-calame-should-resign/#comment-92602

They seem to indicate you would be someone who places EU interests above our US interests. Is that how you are approaching things in Iraq?

I suppose this is slightly off topic, but on the otherhand, perhaps a little background will help us to understand you and where you are coming from.

"They seem to indicate you would be someone who places EU interests above our US interest"

I've heard that before. There are other comments where I make it clear that I think that the EU has an equal interest to us when it comes to investigating terror financing via the EU. Keep up your reasearch, and you'll find those comments.

Like this comment?

Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

actus: Certainly. It implicates EU privacy law. Are the Europeans not entitled to their laws? They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.

"Like this comment?"

When I say others, I mean other than the one linked to.

But you're getting warm: "They’re also concerned about the war on terror too."

[Amador]

Hey asswipe, get a nym or I'll kick your balls till they sing the National Anthem backwards.

[Patty]

I needed a good giggle. Thanks.

[TimWB]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20war

From Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
civil war:

"a war between political factions or regions *within* the same country."
(emphasis mine)

or

American Heritage Dictionary
civil war / n.
A war between *factions* or regions of the same country.

Then there's Colin Powell. Please tell me a West Point grad, who's a 'Nam combat vet, who's former Chair of the Joint Chiefs, who's former Secretary of State doesn't know what "civil war" means. I need reassuring.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Merriam-Webster: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

Want to compare dictionaries to see whose is thicker?

I guess if the correct definition really is "political factions or regions *within* the same country", then a fight between Canadians and Venezuelans that took place in Arizona would be a civil war, right?

But really, that still misses the point: I'm not on the ground there, and neither are you, so I honestly can't say whether or not the conflict there should technically be described as a "civil war", but - and maybe this is just me - I would think that if and when that determination is made, it would be by someone other than Matt Lauer.

But like I said, that's just me.

As for Colin Powell, we can go back and forth with the bona fides of supporters and opposers of the war all day (Abizaid's a West Point grad, etc., etc.), but once again that would just be a pissing match, wouldn't it?

Were you deferring to Powell when he supported the Iraq war? Just wondering.

[EFG]

So actus, you don't deny that you place EU interests above US interests?

[TimWB]

Goodness, what fast service!

Re the brewing conflict between Argentina and Canada: they are not in the same country. Perhaps you meant "region". If so, you overlook the flashpoint tensions between the Earth and the disenfranchised Plutonians (Boy are they pissed about that "planet" thing!). Seeing as you do not disagree that Iraq qualifes as a "the same country" or is a "region", I'll have to assume you agree.

Yes, arguements can turn all uriney so quickly. But if both sides agree on the qualifications of one who defines the point of discussion, the urine factor is greatly reduced. Seeing as you do not argue the point regarding Colin Powell's qualifications in calling something a "civil war", seeing as he has experience in "civil" and "war", I assume you agree that he has the skillz to label something "civil war." Is there someone with similar qualifications who says Iraq is not a civil war?

I do agree, and the Plutonians have made their stand on this issue crystal clear: Matt Lauer is a knucklehead.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Re the brewing conflict between Argentina and Canada: they are not in the same country. Perhaps you meant "region".

No, I meant "country". That was a reference to a discussion earlier in this comment thread - the meme from the media and the left in general was that the Iraq conflict was drawing in "foreign fighters" (which is why I highlighted "citizens" in the definition I provided) and creating a "hotbed for terrorism". Now that the meme is "civil war", I'm pretty sure that angle will be played down and we'll only hear about fighting between different Iraqi factions.

Powell's qualifications to label a conflict a civil war? Do you mean West Point grad, former JCS Chairman and former Secretary of State? Is that the perfect storm of experience that makes him better qualified than anyone else to make the distinction? It's a difficult combo to match, but I'm not sure it makes Powell's analytical skills regarding military conflicts superior to the whole of the US military command or the scores of analysts who disagree with him on this issue.

But, once again, did those qualifications render his opinions and analysis infallible when he was making the case for invading Iraq?

[TimWB]

Re foreign fighters: One can have "civil war" with aid from fighters from foreign nations or regions. These two factors are not mutually exclusive.

Did I believe Powell in the UN? Just listening to a person means nothing. You need to account for context and expertise. Do you listen to the doctor who took out your gallbladder when he says you need new siding? Do you agree with everything the President says?

While in office, Powell who was well-known in the media and in Washington for being a good soldier and a team player. Powell (it was said in '01 and '02) who was the only one of the President's advisors who counselled continuing to find diplomactic solutions.

I watched that presentation to the UN. Given this context and its content, no, I did not believe him.
Powell later stated that his presentation to the UN was "the lowest point of his career." It appears that I was right not to believe him.

But now we have Powell who is retired and beholden to none. The intelligence he is provided is now from his old buddies straight from the battlefield; ie the generals who have gone before Congress and stated that Iraq is an escalating mess.

I did not believe him in '02 because his stance for diplomacy put him at odds with those who wanted immediate invasion, because he had a reputation for taking orders (and so had to publicly deliver his boss's policy), and because the information he presented was dicey. Now Powell can rag his old employers just like any retiree, and now has information from more direct and credible sources (who could just as easily support the president's view).

"Civil war," "insurgency", or "whatever."

[TimWB]

Oh!

PS: I just read and understood your point about Venezualans and Canadians. My goof.

By my definitions, yes it would be a civil war.

But by your definition, seeing as the Venezualans and Canadians are supporting the battling Arizona factions of Catholics and New Agers (to completely mug this poor, unsuspecting metaphor), then yes you still have a civil war.

[John from WuzzaDem]

One can have "civil war" with aid from fighters from foreign nations or regions.

Ah, so I guess we're not "creating more terrorists" any more. Now we've got "fighters from foreign nations or regions" coming in to lend a hand in the civil war. Got it.

My gallbladder is fine, and, no, I don't believe everything the President says - what's that got to do with the price of tea in Baghdad?

I must say, I'm impressed with the case you've laid out for Powell, though:

He "was well-known in the media and Washington", "a good soldier and a team player", "had a reputation for taking orders", so he "had to publicly deliver his boss's policy". And don't forget what "was said in '01 and '02".

How could anyone argue with hards facts like those?

And now, he "is retired and beholden to none", gets his intelligence "from his old buddies straight from the battlefield", and "can rag his old employers just like any retiree", because he "has information from more direct and credible sources."

You obviously have much better "sources" than I do, so I can't refute any of the inside info you've presented.

See you at the Colin Powell Day parade.

[TimWB]

OK. Terrorists. Which they are. And participating (and precipitating) in a civil war.

And who are you arguing with? I never said the invasion created terrorists. These same foreign terrorists (as opposed to the domestic Shiite/Sunnis) would have gone to Afghanistan if not for Iraq.

I've read many posts by you on this site where you provide many general observations without citing sources, but okey-doke, here's some:

"The Tragedy of Colin Powell"
http://www.slate.com/id/2095756/

"The Man Who Knew"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

An article where Richard Perle sings Powell's praises:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec04/powell_11-15.html

But I'm sure none of these sources of "hard facts" (or anything else if you google "Colin Powell") would pass muster with you, all being MSM.

What you have conceded: 1) Powell is entitled to his educated opinion of the Iraq situation. 2) Any of the easily googlable points regarding his work performance, testimony of fellow generals, and devotion to duty and superiors, supports his impartiality in this topic. 3) That by your own definition, ("Now we've got "fighters from foreign nations or regions" coming in to lend a hand in the civil war" does not support your arugement re nations/regions, and seems to concede to mine) Iraq is a civil war.

And if Powell's retirement doesn't explain his change of heart re the invasion, what do you suggest does?

But hey, sarcasm's easier than refuting specific points.

Later.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Are you even reading my comments? Here's an excerpt:

I honestly can't say whether or not the conflict there should technically be described as a "civil war", but - and maybe this is just me - I would think that if and when that determination is made, it would be by someone other than Matt Lauer.

In fact, I said in one of my first comments that the situation in Iraq might very well fit the definition of a civil war, so I hate to burst your bubble, but a "gotcha" isn't applicable here. And once again, that's not the point of the post.

I checked my blogging permit, and it looks like I'm allowed to make "general observations without citing sources" - it is after all a goofy satire blog. If you're coming here for heavily sourced analysis you're in the wrong place.

So, what you want is for me to "concede" that Colin Powell is entitled to his opinion? All right, as much as it pains me, I concede.

What would cause Powell to change his opinion? I have no idea, but according to a lot of sources - including those you've provided and your own comment - he was sidelined, ignored, and pretty much forced to do something that he describes as "the lowest point in his career".

I'm not claiming that's why he's saying what he is now, just making the point that there's obviously more than one possibility.

"So actus, you don't deny that you place EU interests above US interests?"

I say they're the same. Take that as denial as you wish. I'm sure you'll invent something.

But there's a lot of deja-vu here. haven't I already had this conversation? go read it again.

"So actus, you don't deny that you place EU interests above US interests?"

actus: "I say they're the same."

I guess that explains why you would say this

Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

actus: Certainly. It implicates EU privacy law. Are the Europeans not entitled to their laws? They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.

Just out of curiosity, what am I inventing? Why so defensive about your own words?

"I guess that explains why you would say this"

I know: "They’re also concerned about the war on terror too." Thats where I say they have the same interest in stopping terror financing through the EU as we do.

"Just out of curiosity, what am I inventing?"

This idea you have that because I think the europeans have the same interest we do, it means that I put them above us.