Is it Civil War if one side has an army and the others are terrorists without one?

I saw this story twice in the past hour on the local ABC station. I find it odd the way opponents of this war, like those during the Vietnam war, place great emphasis on the existence of civil war, as if what you call the violence is important.

Here's another example. Retired General Paul D. Eaton argues that Don Rumsfeld should be removed because of:

his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

Sounds like sour grapes and a rehash of John Kerry's campaign.