During the November 27 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show, co-host Dan Caplis criticized the NBC television network for its decision to refer to the conflict in Iraq as a civil war -- a move he claimed was motivated by NBC's supposed desire “to drive the U.S. out of Iraq.” Caplis, however, failed to note that a number of experts and other media outlets also have concluded that Iraq is in civil war.

NBC announced its decision during the November 27 broadcast of the Today show. Co-host Matt Lauer explained by saying, “NBC News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war.”

During his show, Caplis stated that NBC's move “smacks of politics in its rawest form” and that the network's change in terminology “effectively call[s] [Al Qaeda] the victors at this point.” Caplis further stated that "[i]f you are going to accept what is apparently NBC's definition, well then, it's been a civil war since the day we liberated Iraq."

CAPLIS: If you are going to accept what is apparently NBC's definition, well then, it's been a civil war since the day we liberated Iraq. Nothing new now. And to do this now smacks of politics in its rawest form. Really dangerous and, I think, reckless, harmful politics. On the other hand, if there's supposedly something new here justifying the application of the definition, well, at that point, show it to me, NBC, because the fundamentals of what I would normally consider to be a civil war still aren't there. I mean, there is a lot of bloodshed, there's a lot of terrorism. Zarqawi made it clear that he was out -- and Al Qaeda was out -- to start a large-scale civil war so that they could take over Iraq and drive the Americans out. We all know that's their plan. But for NBC to effectively call them the victors at this point I think is premature. So, I see it at this point as being much different than I would refer to or define a civil war as. But, hey, you know, if you want to acknowledge somebody else's definition -- and, again, scholars differ on the components, the critical elements of a civil war -- fine. But then at least acknowledge that you would have to have called this a civil war since the day that statue came down in Iraq. So I think NBC is, is playing politics. It's a publicity stunt. I think it's irresponsible.

However, as Colorado Media Matters noted, in addition to NBC, several prominent media outlets -- including The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, McClatchy Newspapers, and The Christian Science Monitor -- have started referring to the conflict in Iraq as a civil war. Furthermore, as Media Matters for America has noted, several retired senior military officers, including former commander of the United States Southern Command retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, have called the conflict among Iraqis a civil war.

During the same broadcast, Caplis asserted that “NBC is a liberal media outlet” and that the network's motivation for using the term “civil war” is “to drive the U.S. out of Iraq.” He also claimed that the characterization of the Iraqi conflict as a civil war potentially weakens U.S. resolve to support the Iraqi government, stating, "[O]nce you label it a civil war, then you just make it so much easier for those who are arguing to surrender to win."

CAPLIS: Now in terms of motivation, it's obvious: It's to drive the U.S. out of Iraq. [The] suggestion that NBC's politics is influenced by the fact it's owned by GE is belied by their behavior. I mean, NBC is a liberal media outlet, and they have acted that way. GE doesn't control them editorially. And, and, so I think, once you label it a civil war, then you just make it so much easier for those who are arguing to surrender to win. Because, “Hey, we don't want to be in the middle of a civil war!” Even though that is the very tactic the terrorists are using to defeat us in Iraq, is to foment a civil war. So, I think that's the motivation for NBC. And then I guess the question would be, “Well, wait a second -- why did NBC have to do this?” I mean, where was the urgent cry from Americans, from the media consumers -- “Please! NBC, tell us whether you label this a civil war! Tell us whether, NBC, this is a civil war or not, because we are unable out here -- the great unwashed, uneducated masses -- we are unable to simply have you report the facts so that we can then interpret them and decide for ourselves whether to call it a civil war or not.” So where was the great compelling need for NBC to make that decision? And, you know, well, the need obviously is they want to impact U.S. policy.

In explaining why he did not believe that Iraq was in civil war, Caplis asserted that “what you have in Iraq is, you have a lot of bloodshed between Sunnis and Shia, but you don't have those groups as a whole determined to kill the other.” Caplis apparently cited a March 24 Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer to make the dated assertion that “you've had Sunnis attacking the Shia-dominated government from the beginning, but you haven't had, as Krauthammer points out -- and he has defined it as a civil war for some time -- you haven't had the Shia fighting back.”

In response to Caplis' criticism of NBC, co-host Craig Silverman noted, without acknowledgment from Caplis, that Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria and The New York Times also have stated that Iraq is in civil war.

On November 29 -- two days after Caplis made his claims -- CNN reported, “Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that Iraq's violence meets the standard of civil war and that if he were heading the State Department now, he might recommend that the administration use that term.”

From the November 27 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:

CAPLIS: I think reasonable people applying different definitions can disagree on whether you can accurately describe this as a civil war. We want to know from you as you drive home tonight whether you would. But here's what really concerns me. If you are going to accept what is apparently NBC's definition, well then, it's been a civil war since the day we liberated Iraq. Nothing new now. And to do this now smacks of politics in its rawest form. Really dangerous and, I think, reckless, harmful politics. On the other hand, if there's supposedly something new here justifying the application of the definition, well, at that point, show it to me, NBC, because the fundamentals of what I would normally consider to be a civil war still aren't there. I mean, there is a lot of bloodshed, there's a lot of terrorism. Zarqawi made it clear that he was out -- and Al Qaeda was out -- to start a large-scale civil war so that they could take over Iraq and drive the Americans out. We all know that's their plan. But for NBC to effectively call them the victors at this point I think is premature. So, I see it at this point as being much different than I would refer to or define a civil war as. But, hey, you know, if you want to acknowledge somebody else's definition -- and, again, scholars differ on the components, the critical elements of a civil war -- fine. But then at least acknowledge that you would have to have called this a civil war since the day that statue came down in Iraq. So I think NBC is, is playing politics. It's a publicity stunt. I think it's irresponsible.

[...]

SILVERMAN: I'm surprised you're saying that, Dan, because the Shia and the Sunni were living together in the wake of that statue falling, and it was a year or two before the sectarian violence really started to explode. It wasn't as if, uh; they have mixed communities, some separate communities there. It used to be that they could intermingle, and it's only been in the last couple of years that that's really become a huge problem. Now, you say you have your own definition of civil war. I'm not sure what it is, but there's a conventional explanation of a civil war, at least NBC felt there was. What do you think the motivation of NBC is to call it a civil war? You know, they're a subsidiary of General Electric, which probably does as much business with the Pentagon as anybody in the world. They have huge contracts to build jet engines, whatnot. And the other end of that contract is the United States government.

I heard Matt Lauer explain it. I heard it earlier this morning on MSNBC. They just had to make an editorial call. And they're not the only ones who are doing it. The New York Times has already done it. Fareed Zakaria writes in this week's Newsweek, that people will start getting in the mail tomorrow or the next day, “There can be no more doubt that Iraq is in a civil war, in which leaders of both its main communities -- Sunnis and Shiites -- are fomenting violence.” In terms of what's new, have you seen the number of casualties that have gone up? Did you see what happened on Thanksgiving Day in Sadr City, with first the Sunnis attacking the Ministry of Health and then the incredible series of explosions in Sadr City, 200 dead? The reprisals the next day at the Sunni mosques. This has been going on unabated for about a year and a half. I think that people are entitled to call it the way they see it. They don't have to wait for the White House to say, “OK, you can stop calling it sectarian violence. You can call it a civil war.” Uh, these people are paid for their judgment, and just as we make calls on this show, to either call Michael Richards a racist or not or whatever we want to say, NBC studied this situation, and they feel that it's a civil war, and that's the way they're going to call it.

CAPLIS: Now in terms of motivation, it's obvious: It's to drive the U.S. out of Iraq. Your suggestion that NBC's politics is influenced by the fact it's owned by GE is belied by their behavior. I mean, NBC is a liberal media outlet, and they have acted that way. GE doesn't control them editorially. And, and, so I think, once you label it a civil war, then you just make it so much easier for those who are arguing to surrender to win. Because, “Hey, we don't want to be in the middle of a civil war!” Even though that is the very tactic the terrorists are using to defeat us in Iraq, is to foment a civil war. So, I think that's the motivation for NBC. And then I guess the question would be, “Well, wait a second -- why did NBC have to do this?” I mean, where was the urgent cry from Americans, from the media consumers -- “Please! NBC, tell us whether you label this a civil war! Tell us whether, NBC, this is a civil war or not, because we are unable out here -- the great unwashed, uneducated masses -- we are unable to simply have you report the facts so that we can then interpret them and decide for ourselves whether to call it a civil war or not.” So where was the great compelling need for NBC to make that decision? And, you know, well, the need obviously is they want to impact U.S. policy.

Beyond that, again, as I said earlier, hey, reasonable people can, you know, choose one of many different reasonable definitions out there for a civil war, and choose to apply it. But in terms of what's changed, very, very large numbers of Sunni and Shia have been getting killed for a long time in Iraq, dating back to the earliest days and the mosque bombings -- again, you know, for the most part engineered slash encouraged by Al Qaeda so they can take over that country.

But I think the more credible and the more common definition of a civil-war state is where you have this declared state of war between two major factions within a country going back, for example, to our own civil war, when there was no question -- you had two competing governments set up in the United States at that time, you know, the government in Washington and the government in the South. You had two major groups of people in this country completely dedicated to defeating the other. Whereas right now what you have in Iraq is, you have a lot of bloodshed between Sunnis and Shia, but you don't have those groups as a whole determined to kill the other. I -- you've had Sunnis attacking the Shia-dominated government from the beginning, but you haven't had, as Krauthammer points out -- and he has defined it as a civil war for some time -- you haven't had the Shia fighting back. So, so it's been more of this Sunni insurgency fueled by terrorists. So the lack of the competing alternate governments, the fact that the two -- the vast, the majority of people in the two major factions at this point are not dedicated to killing each other and defeating each other. In fact, they turned out to vote in record numbers to form this joint government -- which is still the one and only government in Iraq -- that's why I think the more reasonable approach to this is, no, we don't have a civil war. What we have is a terrorist attack on the existing government, with the major tactic to turn Sunni against Shia and Shia against Sunni.