| dictionary.com-- civil war:a war between political factions or regions within the same country. |
This morning on the Today Show. There was an announcement that NBC has decided to call the internal strife in Iraq a civil war. This is, as they pointed out, not what the governments of either the US or Iraq wants to label it.
Their rationale for calling it a Civil War is as follows:
- Use of massive violence to gain political supremecy
- A Struggle between 3 factions (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds) within one country
- A government unable to control the violence and protect its civilians
A former general in the army adds that there are also the following issues:
- A foreign jihadist element in the country
- A weak and corrupt central government
Their presence, he suggested, although neither central to the definition of a civil war nor unrelated to the conflicts, do not mean that the civil war is not taking place. The main thrust of the fighting, in his analysis, is for control of the society.
The White House says the violence is isolated around Bagdhad and will be contained when Iraqi troops are better trained. The lack of country-side violence means that it is not a civil war, but a regional conflict.
The violence does seem to be spread around all the major cities, however, anywhere where there are two or more of these groups living near each other. Lauer pointed out that the only way that civil wars have ended in the past is through division of a country or the military trumping of one group by another.
Perhaps this explains the reluctance by the administration to call it a civil war; they are hoping that they can still negotiate the differences among the groups rather than back one group over another. The situation, form the outside, seems intractable as each group has representation in the government and uses their particular influence to further their ethnic or regional cause rather than the cause of Iraq as a country. If we call it a civil war, it also seems that it would weaken the current position that Iraq is really a battle between folks that want a democracy and terrorists.
Is this a civil war? If it is, do we have a place there? What does "winning" the war in Iraq mean if it is primarily an internal conflict? Interesting questions prompted by a semantic shift.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
We can begin to right this mess as soon as we can impeach and remove from office those responsible for it, and remand them to an international war crimes tribunal. Nothing would show the world that we're serious about making things right more than to hold those responsible for this unmitigated disaster fully responsible, and demand a full accounting of their crimes.
Good Post John!
Guess what, we're no longer the center of the world, or the middle east. At U.S. Peace Institute panel discussion today [which affirmed Chuck Hagel's recent op ed piece] for all intents and purposes Iran and Syria are now in a stronger position in the middle east than is the U.S.; and, Syria will in no way give up it's interests vis a vis Hezbollah and Hamas. If this is so, Bush's trip is window dressing put together by the Baker Study Group, and perhaps Cheney. Iraq will continue to hit bottom with troops holding on with the aide of U.S. supported insurgencies and perhaps small forces mustered up here and there [no one's gonna tell where they're coming from]. Neither Iran nor Syria will give up anything which is not in their own respective best interests, in order to assist in Iraq. Saudia influence and influence is deteriorated. Isolation and meaningless engagement are no longer on.
The mortar attacks on the northern oil fields and the big brand new Gitmo facility now in the works are not good signs.
Clark Kent,
I'm not sure the rest of the world cares if we make this right--except to keep it contained if that's possible. This is bad--as in the next round of the crusades have already been launched by "insurgents R us" -- and will be spun accordingly.
Impeachment proceedings would need an awfully big net--but I would settle for a couple of big fish.
Let's hear what you propose to do about the Iraqi mess. Bitching will no longer suffice.
How do you plan to counter the Iranian nuclear threat?
Would you simply throw Israel to the Muslin wolves?
I do not get the impression you folks have been listening to Speaker Pelosi who is sounding more like Bush each day. She now has the wherewithall to control the tone of the discussion of the war and she is showing signs of having sobered up considerably.
Ranting about impeachment and retribution will serve no purpose except to further divide this country. Is that what you want?
I just have not been able to discern a valid benefit to the nation in the Democrats call for a "new direction" when they will not explain what is "new".
No one in congress seems to be aware of what to do about immigration, taxation, medical care, etc etc. They are aware of who is making campaign donations, sponsoring junkets, and hosting seminars in Palm Springs or Hawaii.
Delay is a disgrace, but no worse than Jim Wright. Foley is a embarassment but no more so than Franks or the other Massachusetts rep who just died - the one reelected after his affair with a page. There have been as many crooks on one side as the other. Pick 'em.
I have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the first mention of it. North Korea and Iran are much greater threats to our well being than Iraq was. Having said that I feel as an American I must support our leadership as long as they are in power because to do otherwise is counterproductive.
I see the actions of those opposed to the war as being similar to a lineman going to the sidelines after the quarterback calls the play and ranting to the crowd about what a stupid play he has called. Is that not a fair appraisal?
Would he not encourage the other team? Could he not have made his feelings known in the huddle? Would you call such action teamwork or not?