Article

2006-11-26 Iraq

A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2006-11-26 07:02|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Though the Bush administration continues to insist that it is not, a growing number of American and Iraqi scholars, leaders and policy analysts say the fighting in Iraq meets the standard definition of civil war.

The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

So that qualifies South Central LA with the Bloods and Crips. Its officially a quagmire. Withdraw Now!

Posted by Procopius2k 2006-11-26 10:32|| 2006-11-26 10:32|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm down wid dat.

Posted by .com 2006-11-26 10:38|| 2006-11-26 10:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Actually, "W" is sustaining the Civil War, rather than allowing it to tip to the stronger side by observing only. Short of totally destroying the country, it would take 200,000 US troops with 3 to 400,000 Iraqi troops to completely subdue the country (depending of course on how many vehicles are permitted to traverse the roads)!

Posted by smn 2006-11-26 10:41|| 2006-11-26 10:41|| Front Page Top

#4 I dunno about allowing Iraqi forces in South El Lay, man. Might piss off the Barrio Boyz.

Posted by .com 2006-11-26 10:43|| 2006-11-26 10:43|| Front Page Top

#5 By most definitions the current conflict in Iraq isn't a civil war. The number of dead is actually very low on a national level and only looks really bad when you isolate out Baghdad (where the media is). Beyond that if you take out the damage done by foreigners (Al Queda and Iranians) I suspect the casualties are very low.

What we actually have is a regional war that is being fought on Iraqi property and a lot of folks (Media and bad guys) hoping to start a civil war.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-11-26 12:24|| 2006-11-26 12:24|| Front Page Top

#6 Yup, there it is, simplified. Y'know, rjschwarz, That's so clean that I'll bet that even a "journalist" could understand it. But it wouldn't get past the editors, lol.

Posted by .com 2006-11-26 12:29|| 2006-11-26 12:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Yes, rjschwarz, you've nailed it. Yet again, this is a somewhat bizarre "debate" - without any significance - that the administration has botched by not participating. The first time it raised it's head, they should have said (all-hands, across the board):

"In some ways the conflict resembles a civil war, but it's more complicated. You have outsiders coming in, which is something else - and yes, you should be puzzled when you read the phrase 'foreign insurgent' in your wire service story - it's nonsensical. But the conflict is mostly between Iraqis, which is what civil wars basically are. However the main dividing line is not ethnic or sectarian. You have enemies of the new Iraq - a federal country with elected, representative government - from several different sides. They are violent, ruthless. The other side, which we support - which has all ethnic communities represented on it - favor a new Iraq.

The enemies of the new Iraq are both Iraqi and foreign, and have a variety of motivations, almost all bad - there are very few people on that side who can sensibly be called 'nationalists'. So you can call the situation in Iraq a civil war, but that is a poor description - it's a very brutal struggle between those who seek a more open, civilized, and democratic future, and those who for widely varying reasons want to prevent that new Iraq from emerging and becoming stable."

The media and the clueless "elite" seem to have among their core beliefs a silly perception that civil wars are unwinnable, or somehow especially unpleasant. Much of the public seems to share this mistaken thinking, so of course the former have been trying to push the concept hard. There's nothing magical about civil wars. But there IS something magical about failure to educate, lead, and shape the discussion in a democracy at war. On this front, alas, the administration has been utterly, inexplicably, and disastrously hapless in a manner without precedent in US history (that I can think of, anyway).

Posted by Verlaine 2006-11-26 12:55|| 2006-11-26 12:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Brilliant work s'mart'mon.

Word to the wise, nudge, nudge, Kos is using your "W". Get the lawyers on 'em.

Posted by Shipman 2006-11-26 13:28|| 2006-11-26 13:28|| Front Page Top

#9 The media and the clueless "elite" value peace at any price and de-value self defense and national defense for any reason unless it favors the jihad.
"utterly, inexplicably, and disastrously hapless in a manner without precedent in US history" - kinda resembles how the USA got into the War of 1812. The US Army post on Mackinac Island was captured by the Brits since the US government didn't bother to tell the on-site US command there was a war on. The US commander in chief personally led his army in a defense of his capital - and lost. The White House got its name from the whitewash used to hurriedly cover the black burn marks left by the invading Brits after they trashed DC.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-11-26 23:21|| 2006-11-26 23:21|| Front Page Top

22:45 ErickWahne
23:45 Swamp Blondie
23:39 Swamp Blondie
23:29 Zenster
23:25 Glenmore
23:21 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:06 Zenster
23:06 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:59 Silentbrick
22:56 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:52 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:48 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:45 ErickWahne
22:35 Chuck
22:26 Zenster
22:25 Hilaliburton Bondi Barbie Div.
22:09 Old Patriot
21:58 USN,Ret
21:57 USN,Ret
21:53 .com
21:52 USN,Ret
21:41 trailing wife
21:32 Frank G
21:30 Frank G