A Civil War by any other Name Would Still be as Deadly

Not that it matters, or that it would change anything on the ground, but isn't the administrations refusal to classify what is happening in Iraq a Civil War a bit obstinate? Merriam Webster's dictionary defines it as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Alot of people seem to agree. Kofi Annan on the BBC, Matt Lauer on the Today Show. Jimmy Carter called it one of our 'greatest blunders' and a civil war. Remember when it wasn't an insurgency either?? As Rumsfeld Said:

"Over the weekend, I thought to myself, 'You know, that gives them a
greater legitimacy than they seem to merit,' " Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon briefing
yesterday, said of his ban on the I-word. "It was an epiphany," he added,
throwing his hands in the air.
Encouraging reporters to consult their
dictionaries, the defense secretary said: "These people aren't trying to promote
something other than disorder, and to take over that country and turn it into a
caliphate and then spread it around the world. This is a group of people who
don't merit the word 'insurgency,' I think."

Covering His Ass or Pulling His Head Out Of It?

Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working. Link To Story Link to the full Memo

So, I wonder, did he know he was going when he wrote it and was he just trying to cover his ass on the way out? Or was he finally pulling his head out of it?