Richard if the White House had talk to you maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. You know more than all these guys. We see a civil war yet we're told everything is going good. Our troops are in the middle with no way out. It's like being in the middle of a married couple. When it's over your the enemy of both. We need to come home and let the Iraq people settle their differences. Richard you take care of yourself and let the people of Iraq know all Americans aren't like Bush and his group of liars. I really pray for the people as the US invaded their country and messed it up.

Civil War, Sectarian War or Whatever!

One sure thing is Iraq central govenment has no power at all! Prime minister Maliki had no authority over Militia and no power to stop insurgents.

The war between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias has been going on for some time.

What do you call the state whis has no govenment power and killing among ethnic groups?

I think NBC should stick to reporting the news instead of "labeling" what is occuring in the Iraq or other areas of the world. Leave the labeling to the diplomats. NBC and other news organizations under estimate the negative impact your reports can have on service members serving in those areas. The terrorists, militia members or what ever you wish to "label" them watch everything you report. Your reports give them hope that they are dividing the U.S opinion and that they will eventually win. I belive your reports and others have in fact helped divide what ever support there was for the war here in America.

How about reporting on all the good things that are occuring there instead of making the American public think all of Iraq is blowing up everyday. Lets see the impact on public opinion if all the new organiztions reported only the good things for one week then do a survey! I recently returned from Iraq in July and there are so many other things you could report on. Instead all we get is the sky is falling.

This is from a devoted fan of NBC morning news. Stick to the news and remain independent. I think NBC should avoid the stigma of the cabel news labels of either liberal or conservative.

Amazing how terminology seems so important. I remember when Fox News introduced the "homocidal bomber" to replace "suicidal bomber". I remember when the Bush Administration introduced "terrorist" to replace "insurgent". Now we're stuck on "civil war".

I'm not sure terminology matters much.

Civil war???? theultra liberal left that all media has become is why I NO LONGER HAVE any confidence in them. You have degraded into trying to sway events rather than report the news. A notch above a child molester or a lawyer

Richard, Sadly, everything you say is so true. It's been a civil war for so long now. I was wondering when you would use the term. Please stay safe over there, I've been watching you since the war, when you were the only American in Baghdad. You are so brave.

While I can understand NBC's position of calling the violence in Iraq a "civil war", and indeed - the type of violence there fits criteria very well - I am unable to agree. Having a degree in history - I can tell you that Iraq is an artificial country (in that its borders were created through the Versailles Treaty in 1918), not one created through nationalism, patriotism, or around a single underlying theme (such as a strong ruler, control over a vital resource, etc.). Add to the artificial creation of this nation namadic tribes; a tradition of intercene clan, tribe, and familial warfare over camels, goats, water, and any other thing of value in a generally arid environment; and a lack of strong traditional institutions; as well as outside pressures to produce oil and you get a nation that has no strong self identity and will revert to customs and traditions that predate the creation of the "nation" of Iraq. These traditions are far stronger than the "civilization" forced upon the people of this region from Westerners who just "knew" what these people needed. My suggestion, try our best to set up a government that tries to do its best, and then get out of the way - because once we are gone, it will not be pretty!

By textbook definition it is a civil war. Does it make a difference what it is called? Do fewer people, particularly the innocent, the children; die if it is called “sectarian violence”?
Do we feel more comfortable with “ethnic cleansing” as apposed to “genocide”? If all the people, for whatever reason, are “cleansed” by killing them, are they not still dead? Are we as a species, so ignorant that we relay on the definition of the action rather than the results? Change the name of a rose to a cabbage; does it change how it smells? Do the children, suffering in Iraq appear any different than those of any other conflict? Is their suffering any less or any grater because of the definition of the cause of the suffering?
To what degree are we, the United States, responsible for this war, sectarian or civil, for this suffering?

Not a civil war. If this is a civil war, then the fighting that raged throughout Norther Ireland should have been called a civil war. It pitted two religous groups against each other for the right to rule a certain defined area of a larger country. Neither side was fighting for control of say Scotland, onlytheir portion. Neither the Shiite or the Sunni's are fighting for control of northern Iraq, just the area around Baghdad and Central Iraq. They do make attacks outside their area of interest as did the combatants in Northern Ireland.

Listening to Barry McCaffery is never a good thing to do. Not well respected by the men who served under him. Always has been a political shill.

It took the media and the media military experts this long to realize there was a civil war in Iraq??!!! Has anyone in the media, pentagon or politics,ever studied basic mid-eastern history?

I do not know what the war in Iraq is about. The roots of it go back centuries, to when the conflict between Sunni and Shia first began. It also involves rogue elements on both sides who pretend they are good Moslems, but many of whom are really non-religious fascists, based on the works of a wealthy, neer-do-well "scholar" trained at the Sorbonne in Paris in the 1920's: Michel Afluk, who gave these Islamo-fascists, both "Sunni" and "Shia", their "bible": Mein Kampf, by U-no-hu. We will probably not succeed geopolitically in Iraq, war or no war. And it seems to me, nobody in government has articulated to me what, if any, geopolitical goal we have there. And if we have no geopolitical goal, especially one which must be achieved by appropriate use of military and naval force, then our service people certainly do not belong there, and they should be gotten out under the best possible circumstances, which may require us to pay with more of their blood yet, unfortunately.

Liberty constantly has a price; it is never free. Sometimes, when proper action is taken early enough, the price will be low, and rather painless. But if we don't act in time, including use of the last resort, reasonable force, the price will be much, much higher, and much more painful. But Liberty will accept one and only one currency, regardless of the price, and that currency, unfortunately, is blood, and I am afraid that is a condition we all have to accept, if we want to remain free and to recover and sustain the Liberties we have lost, especially since "9-11".

Peace, if there is any of it left.

Of course it is! The definition of a Civil War is when two sides of one country fight each other it is a civil war. Is this not what is happening now. YES.

I always wonder where the littlest "Kuralt" gets his hair products in theater. (or should I say "theatre"?)

99% of the world's population has no idea what is really going on in Iraq, Afganistan, Israel, or any other troubled land. All we get in the media is a very sanitized version of events, motivations, transactions, and diplomacy. If you believe who you watch and listen to you will make poor judgments. The article here by Engel has been washed, stirred, spinned, and fine-tuned to fit what his editors believe America can handle.

I guess it has always been a civil war. From the moment that coalition forces toppled the Sunnis, the Shites figured they were in charge. The Sunnis regrouped, the Shites agreed to try to work in out, the terrorists tried to goad the Shites into not giving the Sunnis a chance...voila...civil war. Quite an unholy alliance of knuckleheads. So its a civil war; so what? The more things change, the more they remain the same. There was a time when we thought it was good policy that Sunnis(Iraq) and Shites(Iran) fought each other. Now they're doing it again inside Iraq. We've lost about 3,000 soldiers in 3 years. Heck we've lost 200,000 in car accidents in 3 years, 2.1 million to cancer in 3 years. Given our collective acceptance to car accidents and cancer, the deaths aren't a driving factor. Seems to me if we can keep this civil war going we'll be promoting stability in the region. What a crazy world. I can't wait for the Iranians and North Koreans to get the Bomb...oh wait, Israel is still interested in life. We're off the hook.

no thanks to this president who obliterated the "pottery rule." misrepresentions & miscalculations. abusing his "political capital" with an arrogance unbecoming of any world leader.

so what are we left with? billions wasted, our finest lost or maimed, and the untold loss of iraqis...and our world prestige? i'm now convinced the villians don't reside in iran nor syria... it resides in the once proud whitehouse that is more of a criminalhouse with this so-called "commander and chief." may the sane democrats and republicans take charge and begin to restore a policy that overrides this abused "political capital." am i angry? beyond... we've been betrayed! this president can spin ... so if it's not a civil war, should we call it unorganized chaos?

I often wonder why President Bush does not get some advise from God?

No matter how much the White House and GOP apologists try to muzzle the truth, Iraq has been in a state of civil war for a little over a year now.

Another truism which will take longer admit by most is that the country of Iraq as we knew it, no longer exists.

When Tito died, the former Yugoslavia struggled to redefine its existence. But the long standing divisions between the different Slavic ethnicities had already condemned that country to the past.

The same thing problem lies in Iraq. After 12 centuries of Sunni domination, the Shite's have longed for true self determination in secret and pain.

With Sadaam gone, the iron fist that held the people of Iraq together, is no more, and so is Iraq.

This was inevitable, with or without Bush's war.
However, a wise president would have understood the consequences of an invasion, and factored this into the need for War.

At this time, my mind goes back to the words of a very wise man:

"Until the philosophy which holds one people superior, and another inferior, is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, there will be War!"
- Bob Marley

I think the Bush Administration is finally going to reach the point where they lose all credibility with the American people if they continue to protest against the media calling the situation what it is, a civil war.
Thank you for your great reporting, Mr. Engel.

War?What War? Mass murder?Ethnic Cleansing? Conflict?
Secular violence? Insurgents?
What ever happened to Osama and the 19 terrorists?

Oh they must be hiding behind the "New Phase"
What spindoctor thought that up? It should never be used in the same sentence with our BRAVE men and Women. How disgusting can you get? GOOD MORNING VIETRAQ>

Of course it is a Civil War. As was clearly stated on Countdown tonight, and backed up with fact, all of the necessary elements are there. The powers that be simply don't want to admit it but one would have to have their head buried in the sand not to realize it...plain and simple. Get our boys out now!!! Peace

In the civil wars I’m familiar with (US, Spain, Russia), the objectives involved political, economic and social dominance and control, rather than extermination of noncombatants on the basis of their religious beliefs. If there’s a civil war in Iraq, it sounds like a Rwanda type of civil war, where entire populations are considered legitimate targets, only in Iraq both sides are heavily armed and there’s no element of surprise.

the Iraq war reminds me of the fall of saigon except that we the americans are not wanted there and we are in the middle of a civil war. Iraq in my opinion is far more dangerous then vietnam. The fighting by the vietcong was basically primitive compared to Iraq. Very powerful IED's in Iraq verus hand granades in Nam.

I read this MSNBC piece a couple of days ago http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15896932/ and that's when I knew it was over.

For some reason I thought it wasn't civil war if there weren't regular armies fighting, but it's clear now that the situation has gone past the point of no return - that there is no solution for saving Iraq - and the politicians (US and Iraqi) know this. No blue ribbon committee, no regional conference and no military force can stop it now. It's a sickening feeling to know what's coming - and we're just one incident away.

I sincerely think president Bush should be tried for war crimes. The people of the world should stand up and say this war is the same as murder. Bush hides behind the christian right and onward we go to fight. I think Jesus would not approve of Bush no more then he would of Sadam hussein.