NationStates Jolt Archive

So yes. At least three times in two weeks have I seen the violence in Iraq referred to, quite emphatically (and once without any prompting) as 'not a civil war'. This was by some defense cabinet junior and two American officials. Was it Rumsfeld, perhaps? I get confused when I have an image of him in my head. C'est la vie.

Anyway, here's three definitions of civil war:

A war between factions or regions of the same country.
Dictionary.com

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Webster

a war between citizens of a country
OED

Indeed. So is Iraq in a state of civil war? Do we need officials to tell us what a civil war is?

Personally, I'd say yes. Iraq is in the middle (or maybe early stages - who knows?) of an incredibly murky, intractable and vicious civil war.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 2006 isn't as rosy as I thought it would be when I was eight.

There's nothing civil about war. :(

thank Mary for the dictionary.

Paper's over-rated.

I'd call Iraq to be a step bellow civil war. Terrorist bombings and sectarian death squads aren't really a "war" but chaos, violence etc. There really isn't any kind of organized militias shooting at each other that I've heard of anyway.

Incidentally, if you vote #1,

Wikipedia Disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars).

not really, but its getting damn close.

America hasn't left yet, so I'd say no, it's just a regular war.

Incidentally, if you vote #1,

Wikipedia Disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars).

And wikipedia is such a trustworthy site ;)

America hasn't left yet, so I'd say no, it's just a regular war.

Regular occupation?

I'd call Iraq to be a step bellow civil war. Terrorist bombings and sectarian death squads aren't really a "war" but chaos, violence etc. There really isn't any kind of organized militias shooting at each other that I've heard of anyway.

I'll have to agree with this. At least some of the violence is comming from foreigners who have come into the country to fight, and the violence is still more random that it normally is in a war (which still isn't saying much).

America hasn't left yet, so I'd say no, it's just a regular war.

That's interesting. Why can't you have a civil war at the same time as a regular war?

If you don't believe military superiority pushes calling 2003 - 2006 'a war' a little to the speculative side, anyway.

There's nothing civil about war. :(

Quoted for truth........unless you politely ask to shoot your opponent.

That's interesting. Why can't you have a civil war at the same time as a regular war?

If you don't believe military superiority pushes calling 2003 - 2006 'a war' a little to the speculative side, anyway.

I hadn't thought of that. Hmmm.

There's nothing civil about war. :(

I love Guns&Roses

We've got them fighting each other over there so we don't have to fight them ourselves over here. Bush is a better strategist than even he ever imagined!

Incidentally, if you vote #1,

Wikipedia Disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars).

And Wikipedia also says:

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

I think that, coming out of the propaganda machine here in the US, the idea that Iraq is not in some fashion in a civil war, is rather silly.

At the moment, we are there shooting people on both sides of their civil war, which keeps them somewhat contained. But it would sound awfully bad, publicity wise, for the US to admit "Yes, we got rid of their evil dictator, so that they could enjoy the peace and democracy that we enjoy, and half the country THEN rose up to say 'we don't want THAT, go away and let us kill each other'." It really doesn't look good if it turns out that the reason the country didn't have a civil war was BECAUSE of Sadam, when our stated goal was to remove him.

Thus, we are still there, doing our best to keep the civil disturbances that we fomented in the first place from reaching the level of all out war, and our government is doing it's best to convince us that we were right to be there in the first place. Part of that convincing involves trying to convince the world that there is no civil war.

So pay no attention to the violence and fighting over the next form of government! It really doesn't mean anything

We've got them fighting each other over there so we don't have to fight them ourselves over here. Bush is a better strategist than even he ever imagined!

Boy, I'm hoping you just forgot to put the [/sarcasm] tag on that one!

Boy, I'm hoping you just forgot to put the [/sarcasm] tag on that one!

I don't use the [/sarcasm] tag. Either you know my views and you understand it's sarcasm, or you don't know my views, take it seriously, respond to me angrily, and it's almost as much fun as trolling.

And Wikipedia also says:

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it


Done. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_civil_wars&action=history)

I don't use the [/sarcasm] tag. Either you know my views and you understand it's sarcasm, or you don't know my views, take it seriously, respond to me angrily, and it's almost as much fun as trolling.

I do know your views... I should have included the :D but I thought you would get, from context, that I was joking.

:p

there is nothing civil about the iraq war. thousands of innocent ppl were killed.

There is no civil war, only foreign-funded Islamofascists trying to usurp power from the current government. Not to worry, though, the situation is getting brighter and brighter by the day as the Iraqi army becomes steadily more powerful.

There is no civil war, only foreign-funded Islamofascists trying to usurp power from the current government. Not to worry, though, the situation is getting brighter and brighter by the day as the Iraqi army becomes steadily more powerful.

Hook, line and sinker, little fish.

There is no civil war, only foreign-funded Islamofascists trying to usurp power from the current government. Not to worry, though, the situation is getting brighter and brighter by the day as the Iraqi army becomes steadily more powerful.

Yeah, I can really see things getting brighter and brighter. I mean surely less Iraqis are dying? Or the troops are safer then they were? Infanstructure greatly improved?

No?

Well eventually these things will happen I guess...

What was that strange business of Al-Qaeda releasing its casualties list for Iraq? 4000 killed (?) Versus 2,793 (?) on the American side so far, Versus 2,000 (?) civilians in two months (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/)

I've got no clues what to call this state of affairs.

What was that strange business of Al-Qaeda releasing its casualties list for Iraq? 4000 killed (?) Versus 2,793 (?) on the American side so far, Versus 2,000 (?) civilians in two months (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/)

I've got no clues what to call this state of affairs.

I find it interesting that with a pretty long list of female fatalities that no one on the right is trying to make a big deal out of it.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Female.aspx

Well eventually these things will happen I guess...

The Iraqi army is gaining in stength daily. It already has one division fully under its control and two more are slated to be handed over each month. Eventually, it will be able to combat foreign terrorists, despite the heavy funding that they receive from Iran and Syria. Perhaps invading Iran or Syria will ease the burden on Iraqi defense forces.

The Iraqi army is gaining in stength daily. It already has one division fully under its control and two more are slated to be handed over each month. Eventually, it will be able to combat foreign terrorists, despite the heavy funding that they receive from Iran and Syria. Perhaps invading Iran or Syria will ease the burden on Iraqi defense forces.

But in a civil war, the idea is not, de facto, to kill the opposing army. The idea is to take control. If you have a police force / army, they are instruments of the state. If a government is formed by political wings of paramilitaries, then someone, somewhere has won a battle. The form of the battle may be a little abstract, because there are multiple dimensions to the power struggle. Nonetheless, it's not how big your army is. It's what you do with it that counts. But it's no bad thing if it's quite big.

If you read Riverbend Blog (which everyone should), I think the tensions in Baghdad make it quite clear that this is a civil war.

So yes. At least three times in two weeks have I seen the violence in Iraq referred to, quite emphatically (and once without any prompting) as 'not a civil war'. This was by some defense cabinet junior and two American officials. Was it Rumsfeld, perhaps? I get confused when I have an image of him in my head. C'est la vie.

Anyway, here's three definitions of civil war:

A war between factions or regions of the same country.
Dictionary.com

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Webster

a war between citizens of a country
OED

Indeed. So is Iraq in a state of civil war? Do we need officials to tell us what a civil war is?

Personally, I'd say yes. Iraq is in the middle (or maybe early stages - who knows?) of an incredibly murky, intractable and vicious civil war.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 2006 isn't as rosy as I thought it would be when I was eight.
isn't most of the "freedom fighters" in Iraq from Iran and neighboring countries?

The conflict in Iraq is not, ultimately, a civil war, because one side is not fighting the other. The "insurgency" side is not seeking to engage the military forces of the other; they are instead murdering primarily their own people, in an attempt to make the occupation look bad on the six o'clock news.
In addition, the insurgency has shown no plan to rule or run the country should they be successful. They are not seeking to control the country, only to destroy it.

If you read Riverbend Blog (which everyone should), I think the tensions in Baghdad make it quite clear that this is a civil war.

It's weird how attached you get to that blog. She hasn't been active in the past few months.

Hope she's ok :(

The conflict in Iraq is not, ultimately, a civil war, because one side is not fighting the other. The "insurgency" side is not seeking to engage the military forces of the other; they are instead murdering primarily their own people, in an attempt to make the occupation look bad on the six o'clock news.
In addition, the insurgency has shown no plan to rule or run the country should they be successful. They are not seeking to control the country, only to destroy it.

We can say that Iraq has an incredibly high crime rate. Gangs, organized crime, all that good stuff.

In addition, the insurgency has shown no plan to rule or run the country should they be successful. They are not seeking to control the country, only to destroy it.

You mean "has shown you no plan"

Are you denying the existence of political and paramilitary wings of the same faction - hidden and open - in Iraq?


.

You mean "has shown you no plan"

Are you denying the existence of political and paramilitary wings of the same faction - hidden and open - in Iraq?


.

No, they probably exist. But not only haven't they shown me, they haven't shown anyone - if they had a plan, they'd have shown it, if only for propaganda purposes.

I voted #1.

No, they probably exist. But not only haven't they shown me, they haven't shown anyone - if they had a plan, they'd have shown it, if only for propaganda purposes.

First - If you had a plan for gaining power, how many people would you show? "Ok nation - this is how we're going to play to your fears.... ready?"

Second, it's fairly obvious that sectarian violence is linked to sectarian politics. If you don't agree, Zalmay Khalilzad (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N5/5long2.html) did.

First - If you had a plan for gaining power, how many people would you show? "Ok nation - this is how we're going to play to your fears.... ready?"

Second, it's fairly obvious that sectarian violence is linked to sectarian politics. If you don't agree, Zalmay Khalilzad (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N5/5long2.html) did.

No, I'd expect them to say such things as "We will give you peace and justice under shari'a law" or "we will form a governmen of national unity" or "we will drive the heretic shi'ites into the sea", depending on what they wanted and who they were addressing. They don't even seem to be trying to get the man on the street on their side.
And yes, I agree that a lot of the violence is sectarian. That doesn't make it a civil war, just a hateful one.
Oh ,and thanks for the link. I'd missed that.

No, I'd expect them to say such things as "We will give you peace and justice under shari'a law" or "we will form a governmen of national unity" or "we will drive the heretic shi'ites into the sea", depending on what they wanted and who they were addressing. They don't even seem to be trying to get the man on the street on their side.


But this is my point. The political parties in government, the local governments and the imams are all appealing to people to perform various actions for the state - be it voting, working for Americans, killing Sunnis, engaging in direct action, rebuilding communities, running for election etc etc etc.That they are doing it under the aegis of mass slaughter is not a new approach.

Incidentally:
we will form a government of national unity (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22we+will+form+a+government+of+national+unity%22+iraq&btnG=Google+Search)

But this is my point. The political parties in government, the local governments and the imams are all appealing to people to perform various actions for the state - be it voting, working for Americans, killing Sunnis, engaging in direct action, rebuilding communities, running for election etc etc etc.That they are doing it under the aegis of mass slaughter is not a new approach.

Incidentally:
we will form a government of national unity (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22we+will+form+a+government+of+national+unity%22+iraq&btnG=Google+Search)

Hmm - I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying the interim government (or whatever it's called at the moment) are controlling the insurgency?

Hmm - I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying the interim government (or whatever it's called at the moment) are controlling the insurgency?


It would shock me to the bones if the interim government was in full control of the insurgency.

But there's a good chance that some people in the government are linked to violence. If you can accept that this happens in Northern Ireland, Columbia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Russia and Indonesia, then why not Iraq?

This is not my main point, though. I'm saying that the government of the future will be formed of those fighting now.

It would shock me to the bones if the interim government was in full control of the insurgency.

But there's a good chance that some people in the government are linked to violence. If you can accept that this happens in Northern Ireland, Columbia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Russia and Indonesia, then why not Iraq?

This is not my main point, though. I'm saying that the government of the future will be formed of those fighting now.

Well, if they succeed in driving the US out, you may well be correct. I just don't see any evidence that they have either prepared, or contemplated, that far ahead.

If it were a civil war then people would be more polite in their fighting.

(first post yay!)

This is pretty much a civil war, and the US is more of a third-party aide to one side than an active third side. Kind of like France in the Revolutionary War.

Well, if they succeed in driving the US out, you may well be correct. I just don't see any evidence that they have either prepared, or contemplated, that far ahead.

Alright, forgive me here, because I'm making broad assertions.

I feel that all sides have been tarnished (certainly in the Anglo-Western POV) by America et al's seeming lack of foresight. It would be bizarre if the people who actually have to live in Iraq for the rest for their lives (in power or not) had not actively pondered how their future was going to be shaped. It would be like us in Britain not having an opinion on our NHS spending because Burundi haven't drawn up their projections of it.

So yes. At least three times in two weeks have I seen the violence in Iraq referred to, quite emphatically (and once without any prompting) as 'not a civil war'. This was by some defense cabinet junior and two American officials. Was it Rumsfeld, perhaps? I get confused when I have an image of him in my head. C'est la vie.

Anyway, here's three definitions of civil war:

A war between factions or regions of the same country.
Dictionary.com

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Webster

a war between citizens of a country
OED

Indeed. So is Iraq in a state of civil war? Do we need officials to tell us what a civil war is?

Personally, I'd say yes. Iraq is in the middle (or maybe early stages - who knows?) of an incredibly murky, intractable and vicious civil war.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 2006 isn't as rosy as I thought it would be when I was eight.
According to the former Iraqi Prime Minister, Iraq is IN civil war (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060319/iraq_protests_060319):

Sectarian violence killed at least 35 people died Sunday night, while about 1,500 U.S. and Iraq troops searched for insurgents just north of Iraq's capital.

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi has equated the violence with a civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
That was back in March of this year. Since then, the number of deaths due to this war have gone through the roof:

U.N.: Iraq civilian deaths hit a record (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_civilian_deaths)

UNITED NATIONS - The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high number that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the United Nations said Wednesday.

The report from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office highlighted the sectarian crisis gripping the country, offering a grim assessment across a range of indicators — worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women.

That raises new questions about U.S. and Iraqi forces' ability to bring peace to Baghdad, where the bulk of the violent deaths occurred. Iraq's government, set up in 2006, is "currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq," it said.
Also, distrurbing accounts of torture:

The report said torture was a major concern in Iraq and the bodies showed significant evidence of it.

"Bodies found at the Medico-legal Institute often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails," the report said......

The report said more than 35,000 Iraqis were under detention, including 13,571 by multinational forces. That represents a 28 percent increase over the number at the end of June, it said.

The U.N. special rapporteur has received allegations of torture in prisons run by Iraq's interior and defense ministries, as well as ones under multinational control.

Yup, things are getting better according to Bush, but reality dictates otherwise. Note these numbers are far lower than what is currently happening:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php

6,331 from 1st May 2003 to the first anniversary of the invasion, 19th March 2004 (324 days: Year 1)

11,312 from 20th March 2004 to 19th March 2005 (365 days: Year 2)

12,617 from 20th March 2005 to 1st March 2006 (346 days: Year 3).

Note: past 4 months (since death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) the total is 12,500. Almost as many as all of Year 3 total.

Alright, forgive me here, because I'm making broad assertions.

I feel that all sides have been tarnished (certainly in the Anglo-Western POV) by America et al's seeming lack of foresight. It would be bizarre if the people who actually have to live in Iraq for the rest for their lives (in power or not) had not actively pondered how their future was going to be shaped. It would be like us in Britain not having an opinion on our NHS spending because Burundi haven't drawn up their projections of it.

Nothing to forgive, I think you're probably right.

I just can't help but contrast the situation with some of the other, more clearly civil, wars, successful and failing, around the world. The Eritrean Liberation Front, for instance, had an entire government in exile set up a decade before they made independence a reality. Nobody had any misunderstanding about the Shining Path's plans for a Maoist nation. Or the Poeple's Liberation Army of China, in the years before they routed the Kuomintang.
I don't see the same kind of political side here. Sorry if I've missed something, but it seems to me that a true civil war is about the direction of the future of a country or region, and the insurgency hasn't shown (at least not visible to me) any real vision of what that future is to be.

Nothing to forgive, I think you're probably right.

I just can't help but contrast the situation with some of the other, more clearly civil, wars, successful and failing, around the world. The Eritrean Liberation Front, for instance, had an entire government in exile set up a decade before they made independence a reality. Nobody had any misunderstanding about the Shining Path's plans for a Maoist nation. Or the Poeple's Liberation Army of China, in the years before they routed the Kuomintang.
I don't see the same kind of political side here.

This is fair enough. But there are also civil wars which are less opaque. Reference the civil war in Tajikistan(1992-7), Columbia and Somalia.
Your examples benefit both from type of conflict (arguably symmetrical) and history. Who knows what Mao was really chatting about during the Long March? If it ain't in the book it done never did happen.


"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."


Jesus.

This is fair enough. But there are also civil wars which are less opaque. Reference the civil war in Tajikistan(1992-7), Columbia and Somalia.
Your examples benefit both from type of conflict (arguably symmetrical) and history. Who knows what Mao was really chatting about during the Long March? If it ain't in the book it done never did happen.



Jesus.

Definitely a point. Though I could argue that Somalia is exactly what you get when the winning side has no plan - just complete anarchy. Somalia is less a state than a continuing political meltdown.

Definitely a point. Though I could argue that Somalia is exactly what you get when the winning side has no plan - just complete anarchy. Somalia is less a state than a continuing political meltdown.

Sure. But Somalia never had 11 infantry divisions, 3 mechanized divisions, and 3 armored divisions before its civil war. And no-one in Somalia has claimed victory yet. History will grant Somalia clear combatants, objectives and outcomes - but complex ones. Meanwhile, in the present, everyone bumbles around without a fucking clue.

The American Civil War was quite messy underneath the blue and grey, no?

I believe it's not quite a civil war yet, for several reasons, first and foremost that the different sides haven't coalesced into unified bits and pieces.

It's close, but the total separation and division of the country along such lines has not yet occured, but it could happen at any time, and that won't be any good.

Sure. But Somalia never had 11 infantry divisions, 3 mechanized divisions, and 3 armored divisions before its civil war. And no-one in Somalia has claimed victory yet. History will grant Somalia clear combatants, objectives and outcomes - but complex ones. Meanwhile, in the present, everyone bumbles around without a fucking clue.

The American Civil War was quite messy underneath the blue and grey, no?

Ohhh yeah. Try reading about the Raider Wars in the plains states some time - gruesome.
Okay, I'll accept it as a civil war, at least provisionally. History will be the one to explain it all, as usual.