What's in a word? Civil war & such

This media naming of the residual conflict in Iraq is fascinating.

Some mainstream media outlets have taken to calling the sectarian violence in Iraq "civil war," and they're fond of claiming that the term is being used after "careful consideration."

Media outlets feel as though they need to justify the decision because the White House has emphasized that it does not favor using the term. White House justification for the claim seems pretty clear. People will regard the war less favorably with visions of US troops caught between opposing armed factions.

So, what's this "careful consideration"?

But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided 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 a civil war.
(Washington Monthly, quoting NBC News)

The "careful consideration" appears to amount to a determination that the conflict can be made to fit the proffered definition.

Are armed military factions "fighting," though?
Aren't armed militias simply killing civilians?
What is the supposed political agenda?

Sorry, NBC (and others), but I don't see careful consideration, here.

The truth of the new term is probably explained by logic the reverse of what what the White House used. They are against US involvement in Iraq, and calling the hostilities "civil war" helps advance the cause.
I listened to editors of a major US daily discuss the new terminology--they weren't sure what to do, but they said they wanted to employ "careful consideration" which prompted the question of what the New York Times was doing.
That's one way to carefully consider the issue, I suppose.
One of the editors had the novel idea of finding out what experts said about it (I wonder which experts we're talking about?).

So far, I don't see much "careful consideration," but this story in the Washington Post seems somewhat balanced, at least:

Editors at The Associated Press have discussed the issue and haven't reached a definitive stance, said John Daniszewski, international editor. Most often, the conflict is called "the war in Iraq" or identified with descriptive terms such as sectarian fighting, anti-government attacks or ethnic clashes, he said.

He pointed to the different definitions experts have for civil wars.

"From a historical point of view, not every civil war is called by that name, and wars by their very nature are not always neatly categorized," he said. "For instance, the American Revolutionary War, the Vietnam War and the more recent wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were all civil wars according to the broader definition, yet we do not normally think or speak of them that way."

(Washington Post)

The word choice doesn't make any difference as to the nature of the conflict. The reasons for using the term or avoid it mostly amount to political considerations.
Until armed political factions are fighting each other to attain political ends, the term civil war will not apply to the conflict in its traditional sense.

Maybe political factions will soon be fighting one another to achieve political ends. Maybe they're already engaged against one another--I'm not under the illusion that the news coming out of Iraq is an accurate picture.

When and if that's the case, then there's a good case for using "civil war." Absent that rationale, the use of the term constitutes an editorial judgment in the news pages--supposedly anathema at a major U.S. daily.