What's in a definition?

It was reported just this weekend that MSNBC/NBC news stations are now calling the conflict in Iraq a "civil war" (Reuters, 2006). Merriam-Webster's definition of civil war is "a war between opposing groups of the same country." Reasonable enough? The term seems to adequately cover the Shi'a and Sunni conflicts raging in the streets all over Iraq. However, President Bush and his cabinet reject this definition, as he believes that the conflict in Iraq is being caused by Al Quaeda. And now this disagreement on terminology has become a political debate.
Why would Bush so strongly disagree with both the CIA and current generals working in Iraq on what to call the war in Iraq? What would it mean to the current U.S. administration if, indeed, Iraq's "sectarian violence" is a civil war?

Sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq has increased dramatically in the past week. Multiple bombings in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad on Thursday killed more than 200 people and drew reprisal attacks in
Sunni neighborhoods. [Reuters, 2006]

Maybe, then, blame can be brought right back to the U.S.'s door. What is the difference between "sectarian violence" and "civil war" anyhow? Is this just another parsing of political-babble-speech that seems to allow for distraction of the serious casualties of the war: both American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? What does this mean that the U.S. administration is unwilling to tie words to the issue? It means that we're not really talking to one another, just speaking at one another, and that words like "mission accomplished" brandished on a naval carrier can signal "major battle operations," but that, just recently, Bush could also state that our war on terrorism (Iraq) must continue on until it's abated. Yet

A day after a Pentagon report described spreading sectarian violence and increasingly complex security problems in Iraq, President George W. Bush painted a rosier picture. ... "Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country." [Associated Press, 2006]

Terminology can be a frightening thing. One minute you can be a freedom fighter, the next, a terrorist. And it could mean that, if Iraq has spiraled from sectarian violence into civil war, that the United States bears quite a bit of responsibility. I think this is why what the definition of is is, and why we care so much to define anything at all. Definitions serve as justification for actions. Terrorism is a mighty label, and it just might define many actions, most of them not caused by the actions of Iraqi people.

References Cited
Associated Press. (2006). Bush: No civil war despite 'bloody campaign' of Iraq violence Accessed November 28, 2006, from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/02/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_Bush.php
Reuters. (2006). NBC label of civil war at odds with White House. Accessed November 28, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15921476/