There seems to be an unwillingness in our media and in our government to call a spade a spade and admit that a civil war has broken out in Iraq.

Wikipedia defines civil war as:


Even the former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi had this to say to the BBC:


How does that compare to other civil wars in terms of violence? Well in El Salvador for instance according to the CIA Factbook about 75,000 died over the course of 12 years. That makes for about 17 deaths a day. You'll find similar counts for other "accepted" civil wars.

Questions for debate:
1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

That initial Wikipedia sentence is seriously flawed (grammatically, not necessarily substantively).

Here is the key sentence:


2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

The Iraq war right now is an insurgency not a civil war. There has been few conventional battles in Iraq between the insurgency and the governing authority. The insurgency cannot defeat the government using the tactics it is using. Hence it is not a civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency


Of course, "civil war" "revolution" "insurgency" are all semantics because they all have similar meanings which blend together for different people. I guess the only thing that matters is whether or not the insurgency is gaining strength or losing it.

1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

I got a definition of Civil War from barnaby.com
Civil War - People from the same country killing each other.
I feel that my definition is superior to all others in its simplicity and directness.

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks because the Bush Administration doesn't care. They don't go by "Polls." Democracy takes a backseat to "strong leadership." If Iraq was in Civil Genocide this administration would claim the media was grossly exagerrating the story.

What if it was Civil War? Would the Bush Administration withdraw or redeploy to the borders of Iraq? No. What if Dick Cheney was drunk and shot his friend in the face? Would he get prosecuted? No. What if Bush disregarded the FISA laws and started spying on citizens without reason? Would he be prosecuted? No.

Of course it's a Civil War, but it doesn't matter because the general population does not matter.

Based on the frenetic actions of this administration and those in congress pushing to get a coalition gov't established, I'd say if it's not a civil war now it's ramping up to be a doozy.

I'd say it's "sectarian violence" fomenting into what appears to becoming full-out civil war.

There does seem to be some hope that it can be allayed.

And it certainly is convenient that you happened to skip the next two sentences for the benefit of your argument Amlord:


By the selective reading of the definition you made a large majority of the civil wars fought in the recent past would not actually be classified as civil wars because they were not organized armies fighting conventional battles. You might even have to go back to the American Civil War to find an example but I can't be certain. And the other key thing, which I bolded, is the wikipedia definition does not suggest which school of thought prevails in historical circles. For all we know the sentence you highlighted as "key" (which supports your opinion) is held by a small minority of purists. It would be interesting to hear thoughts from Eeyore and Vermillion on this matter.


Sure it can Amlord. The government right now exercises and extremely weak grasp on power which over time could be rendered completely ineffective. The insurgents "win" if the country descends into complete lawlessness and the government fails, and frankly that isn't so hard to imagine. The political will to make things happen right now is essentially nullified even today.

And once again, you are defining a civil war by conventional battles, I suppose that the majority of the conflicts we've generally classified as civil wars were not in your opinion.

If you simply want to be argumentative...

Let's take the "simple" definition that Wikipedia sums it up with:



By this definition, what's going on in Iraq is not a Civil war. It is not the Kurdish portion of Iraq fighting the Sunni Triangle. It is not the Shia south walling itself off from Baghdad either.

Interestingly, Wikipedia's list of civil wars does not include Iraq.

I have already conceded, however, that Iraq is an insurgency, which is simply another name (with a different connotation) for a type of civil war.

More assumptions, a civil war does not have to be defined by geography (as many in the past decades have not been) they can also be defined by ethnicity. In this case the violence we are seeing now is ethnic/religious in nature - you have shias fighting sunnis.


How is that an argument? I used them for the definition of a civil war because it was convenient, people know them, etc. And most importantly as a starting point for the debate, not a final authority. Just because they don't say it is a civil war does not make it the case. If that is the entirity of your argument it is extremely weak.

If you want to find a better definition then supply your own, that was one of the debate questions. Implied there is that there is some debate on what the definition even is and the wikipedia article underscores that.

This is a simple matter. A civil war, regarding Iraq, is an event free from external influences. And that's that. The US and Brits driving around wearing arab outfits while packing some serious explosives is reason enough to see that what is happening in Iraq is not a civil war where Iraqis are pitted against Iraqis. It's a war in which external forces are influencing events. How many other cars with Americans or Brits masquarading as Arabs do we never hear about?
http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/09/23/4096.shtml

Well what you have is some Sunni’s fighting some shiias some of the time over some issues or perceived attacks. Hardly a civil war.

And let’s remember these folks from both groups voted overwhelmingly for a democratic government. Is each faction happy with all the others all of the time? No but this is certainly not an all out civil war.

Ted I posted a quote from the former prime minister of Iraq in the opening post, I think he would be in a better position to know what is going on there than you would. If you want to offer some kind of evidence to support your position then fine, but this comment isn't going to cut it.

1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

I prefer this definition from Answers.com:
definition of civil war

I think this looks pretty acceptable as definitions go.

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

It has the markings of a civil war to me. There are pretty well-defined, longstanding factions willing and trying to destroy each other and each other's religious landmarks in order to gain control of the national government.

Paladin Elspeth found an excellent definition of civil war. Using that definition, take a look at the following eyewitness account of events recorded in a blog from Baghdad last week:

Today it was all out war in Baghdad.

Please don’t ask me whether I believe Iraq is on the verge of civil war yet or not. I have never experienced a civil war before, only regular ones. All I see is that both sides are engaged in tit-for-tat lynchings and summary executions. I see governmental forces openly taking sides or stepping aside. I see an occupation force that is clueless about what is going on in the country. I see politicians that distrust each other and continue to flame the situation for their own personal interests. I see Islamic clerics delivering fiery sermons against each other, then smile and hug each other at the end of the day in staged PR stunts. I see the country breaking into pieces. The frontlines between different districts of Baghdad are already clearly demarked and ready for the battle. I was stopped in my own neighbourhood yesterday by a watch team and questioned where I live and what I was doing in that area. I see other people curiously staring in each other’s faces on the street. I see hundreds of people disappearing in the middle of the night and their corpses surfacing next day with electric drill holes in them. I see people blown up to smithereens because a brainwashed virgin seeker targeted a crowded market or café. I see all that and more.

Healing Iraq blog (link courtesy of Mrs. Pigpen)

Now, I'm certainly no expert. But this sure sounds like civil war to me.

Questions for debate:
1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

Well, I studied "The Civil War" in American History, and of course the war with Ohio in Michigan history. I think this is the first time that I actually saw the term "civil war" defined, so I really don't have much to work from...

I always had thought of civil as a descriptive term for appropriate or polite behavior. The term "civil war" in that context was an oxymoron to me... Is that a commonly accepted definition? Obviously not!

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?
As my computer was constantly restarting last night, I went to another computer and logged on. There was a story highlighted under news that said President Bush was blaming Saddam Hussein for the current upheaval in Iraq. A few seconds into the story, that computer turned off. When I came upstairs and tried to share the story with PE, it had been pulled out of the rotation on my home page...

From The White House Home Page, I found the following excerpt from a speech that our fearmore leader made on March 29, 2006:


Apparently the current story from The White House is that yes, there is a Civil War in Iraq, but all of the turmoil there is a result of the policies of the deposed, on trial, former President of Iraq.

Has the President succeeded once more in his attempts to divert attention from his own role? He probably looked at a photograph on a wall somewhere today that read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and went to bed secure in the belief that he indeed is leading the world in the right direction. I am one of those who is watching his leadership from a great enough distance that I still carry an image in my mind of the President trying to walk through a locked door in China. He needed a better exit strategy then. He still needs an exit strategy from Iraq now. Unfortunately, what I am hearing is the saber rattling of a man who appears to be planning to exit Iraq by invading Iran. He has defined himself repeatedly as a "War President" as though that was something to take pride in. There may be fighting among various factions in Iraq, but what I hear most often is the number of Americans being killed in the war. (Current figures as I am posting, American Casualties in Iraq: 2,323 dead 17,269 wounded) The President wanted to take the war to Iraq so that we didn't have to fight Saddam Hussein in the streets of America. He has succeeded, I guess, to the extent that Saddam Hussein never managed to launch an attack in the United States that killed or wounded 20,000 Americans.

The government was toppled in Iraq, but it was toppled by an invading army, not a revolution. I don't truly believe that any war can be described as a civil activity; but most of all, I find the President's latest attempt to say that the current problems in Iraq can be blamed on Saddam Hussein to be simply disingenuous. There may be more than one faction fighting America there, but if the President's goal is to establish a democracy; he needs to reach a realization that a democracy is governed by its own citizens, not by the "leader of the free world."


I noted that it also did not include the long running war between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, although that would seem to meet one of the definitions posted here as a "civil war" between religious factions in the same country.

I like PE's definition from answers.com. It contains a few elements not contained in the other one.



Let's highlight a few:



Are the insurgents in political or military control of any part of Iraq? They were in Falluja and Sadr City, but not anymore, at least not openly.


Does anyone recognize the insurgents as being a "proper contestant for legitimate power"? Does anyone think they have the moral or political agenda that can allow them to rule Iraq long-term?


The United States, a party to this "civil war", has not recognized that this enemy deserves the protections afforded to soldiers under international law. This is a separate debate but the insurgents do not meet the minimum standards needed to be considered an army.


Again, no one has recognized the insurgents as a party which deserves the rights inherent to a state. I don't know of anyone who thinks of the insurgents in the same terms as the legally elected government of Iraq.

To be fair, Answers.com has a broader list of civil war and its list include at least a dozen conflicts currently going on in the world, including Iraq. Answers.com also has an article which is named Iraqi Insurgency That article has a nice breakdown of the faction involved, their goals and methods employed.

I will state again that the terms "insurgency" and "civil war" are really facets of the same thing. It is the connotation that changes. An insurgency is by an illegitimate force which would be incapable of ruling and which has no claim to legitimacy. A civil war is between two more or less morally equivalent foes. I believe that what's going on in Iraq is closer to my definition of an insurgency rather than a civil war.

I find the semantics game being played here fairly interesting. And to me, it represents the problem with Iraq and why at the end of the day, we will have lost.

Everytime a significant problem arises, the apologists redefine the meaning of the problem through rose colored glasses. That's not really a problem. The problem is, the Bush administration and their apologists use that "definition" as a basis for their actions. And every single time, they've been wrong. They've been wrong about the insurgency ("dead enders", "last throes"), the occupation ("greeted as liberators"), and the elections ("will put an end to the insurgency because they will have nothing left to fight for").

So now, they will stick their heads in the sand and claim there is no civil war while they take the wrong course of action justified on their meaning.

So go ahead - claim it's not a civil war and stick your head in the sand. Because history has shown that you are completely and utterly wrong. You've' not been correct about anything in Iraq yet and this will be no different. If it were members of your family being murdered, you might think different.

I agree this is a semantics game and I'm guilty of playing.

However there is one nugget of real interest here:

Are the insurgents (freedom fighters, rebels, whatever) a legitimate faction?

If we left today, could these insurgents when suddenly transformed into the victorious rebels govern Iraq? I submit they could not which makes their cause illegitimate.

I do know that increasingly the Iraqis do not want Americans there. I do think we need to start withdrawing from the country. However, it is very touch and go because if we leave with a weak central government in place, they will have full blown civil war as the Al-Anbar province may declare independence, the Kurds might decide they are better off on their own and the southern Shia's might decide enough is enough.

I never denied there was a war going on in Iraq. But what we are doing is probably the quickest way to relative peace (for the Middle East).

Well, Castro's insurgents, when suddenly transformed into victorious rebels, proved perfectly capable of governing Cuba. The situation here is different, of course, since there is sectarian warfare. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that whoever wins the ongoing civil war will prove capable of governing Iraq. Whether they are "legitimate" according to anyone's home-cooked standard, I doubt that anyone will care. They will be in possession of some of the world's richest oil reserves, and that will suit most people.

I am not quite sure what "their cause" is, since there are so many of them, but it is at least evident that it includes kicking the United States out of Iraq on a proverbial part of its anatomy. In view of the utterly illegitimate basis of the U.S. presence there, and the indisputable fact that it is their country, not ours, I certainly consider that to be a legitimate cause. But whether it is legitimate or not is of little importance, since blood and iron, not legal niceties, decide the outcome of war.




The British said these same things about India, Kenya and Malasia. The French said them about Vietnam and Algeria. That a substantial part of the American public is saying them now about Iraq reflects the singular immaturity and isolation of the American political consiousness. The White Man's Burden has ever been heavy! And it is a most peculiar bundle: it can never be put down without first admitting that it was thoroughly wrong to pick it up. But our nation, which has had the arrogance to hold itself above history, has nevertheless been condemned to repeat it.

The goals of the United States in the Middle East do, of course, include peace, since there is no such thing as victory without it. But the primary goal is to control Iraq's oil, an important, associated goal being to maintain a powerful military presence in Iraq. That is what Bush and Cheney are fighting for. It's a pipe dream, of course; the cause was lost long ago. But they go on fighting anyway, spending the nation's blood and treasure, because they have no idea what else to do. And the worst possible thing would be to admit that they were wrong.

You've got to be kidding Amlord, do you seriously and honestly think that US Soldiers and Iraqis can just openly stroll around the country and be "in control"? No one is safe anywhere there right now, so while it might not be a clean "I'm in control of this scrap of land" deal they are certainly controlling certain areas in their own way.


Once again please look at other civil wars in the 20th century that are accepted as being civil wars. You might not consider all of the actors there to be "proper contestants for legitimate power" but they are still classified as civil wars.

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

Does it matter what we call it? Does it somehow change the dynamic of the conflict? "Civil War" is a term. Its just words and has no bearing whatsoever. I say call it what you want. Civil war, armaggedon, whatever...it is insignificant.

I think so because I feel language is important.

I find this debate interesting because it has obviously always been a war, but now we see this need or belief to define it as a civil war. It seems the idea of our ownership of this war, as in the you break it you own it, is trying to be changed. By claiming the war is now civil it seems to allow our divorce or removal of responsibility made easier. It is a means of transfer from a war of occupation to a war of civil conflict.

Personally I think you can view it as the expected development of a winding down or deceleration of the US and coalition troops as being the portrayal or embodiment of the opposition. So is this really failure or transition?

I agree with you, but I believe that the way the war is labelled will affect peoples' opinions and the way the war is handled, as bucket mentioned. It's all semantics to me, though.

1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

Drawing on the wikipedia and the answers.com definition, I'd offer two definitions for this particular circumstance. Number one is "Iraqi government vs. insurgents" and number two is "Shi'ites vs. Sunnis."

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

Based on definition one, Iraq is definitely in civil war. Insurgents are directly attacking the the Iraqi government by killing state policemen. Many have resigned and moved out of the country because of the threat of bombers and other violence (see here). As for Shi'ites vs. Sunnis, I'd say no. The bombing of the mosque in Samarra has certainly exacerbated tensions, but hasn't been unilateral action of the factions against each other just yet. If the situation continues to worsen, it's very possible, though. Here's an interesting read on the topic: Iraq Now - Headed for Civil War or Already There

1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

My definition of civil war involves politics. Two or more factions of a civilized country go at each other tooth/nail until one or more quits. To the victor goes the responsibility to keep things running. Civil war is messy, deadly, insane, a failure of the human creature to get along with other human creatures.

I'm pretty sure that this definition is a general one in the human race. We can add in here that all sides have their grand vision of the way things ought to be, and that these grand visions have at their roots honorable ideals.

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

It's a failure of the human creature to get along with other human creatures. It does involve one or more factions going at each other. It is messy, deadly and insane. To the victor will go the responsibility to keep things running.

Yep, walks like a duck, doesn't it.

However, the differences do not involve politics as much as religion. Religion can be considered a big part of politics, so if this is an acceptable parallel, still walks like a duck.

I'm reluctant to include religion into politics, but then I'm obviously in the minority on this one. Therefore, it's a freaking civil war warped beyond all recognition as such. What is going on in Iraq is more insane than civil war. It needs its own name.

It really isn't a war because the factions are not organized into armies. The strategy is simple: Blow each other to pieces. There's no grand ideal to speak of. Hatred is at the core of it. It's a blind and dumb thing with no ears.

How about sensory deprived insanity?

Humans reduced to ants--reverse evolutionary brainlessness?

Eh, we'll come up with something eventually. What is going on in Iraq does not reach the level of civil war. It is early civilization non-thought and irrationality. Primitive douchebagginess? Post-9/11 surprise? I'm searching, searching.

Nope, can't think of a proper name. Maybe it's too ugly.

I find it rather ironic to be discussing this topic, since a few of us pointed out that a civil war in Iraq was going to happen as soon as we went in. To which many here stated that we were some sort of warmongers and didn't really understand the situation. Well here we go again.

1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?
Any of the previous definitions work.

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?
Of course Iraq is in a civil war. It is still in it's early stages but it will get a lot worse, especially once President Bush is out of office and the next President is forced to withdraw US forces.

The only real questions are: Will the allies protect the sole democratic possibility, the Kurds? Second if the Shiites will totally eliminate the Sunnis?

The sooner our troops are withdrawn the sooner a full scale war will erupt. But that is just my humble opinion.

It's not a civil war when you have the Americans instigating the situation and you all know it. Take the US Civil War. Imagine China having been involved while using major amounts of military hardware and ammunitions while choosing sides (north of south). Would that be a civil war? Americans killing Americans working in tandem with Chinese military operations? Not civil. It's not a civil war when you have outside forces. Why is that too hard for people to understand? I know that post-911hohum things all went nutty, but it's striking how people ignore reality now. Bush tells how his illegal wiretaps are legal. That the US is bringing peace and freedom to Iraq, but only the violent oppressed version thereof.
People remember: Civil = no outside forces manipulating things. Here's the US with 150,000 GI's in Iraq and people speak and make statements which are only appropriate if the US wasn't there with such a huge presence.

A civil war is when a country has divided ruling factions within itself and the factions take up arms against each other. To determine whether or not Iraq is in civil war, we must first ask ourselves this:

Is Iraq really even a country?

Not really, I mean, according to our government's policy in dealing with them they are unable to govern, fund, or rebuild themselves. A real country is able to actually make money and not sit around and do nothing while big brother America rebuilds everything for them.

Unfortunately, Iraq is in a civil war. Sunni's kill Shi'ites, Shi'ites kill Sunnis, Kurds kill Turks and they kill them back. Basically, everyone is killing everybody else. Tens of people die every day. Claiming, under these horrible circumstances, that there is no civil war is simply being naive.

I guess it was simpler back when only Saddam was doing the killing. I wonder if you averaged out his handiwork if it would be "tens per day"?

We killed off a few thousand a week during our civil war, I guess Iraqis haven't had enough time to excel at it yet. Not to minimize the death and suffering my forefathers endured, but ours worked out pretty well in the long run, and least now there is a prospect of something better to come for the Iraqis also...

Such an intelligent response, definitely sparked my interest. The question of Iraq's validity as a "real" country. I would have to agree, right now it would seem as a battle zone - - boxing ring of planet earth. 'Just take your fights to Iraq, they don't give a damn' is a thought one could take when questioning the civility of Iraq. Join the trend of killing one another, just as everyone else in Iraq is.

Concluding, as of right now, Iraq isn't a country, rather a warzone, seeking all of its help, which is most heavily needed, from 'big brother America'.

So that just sums it all up then right? Our civil war worked out for the best so all others will too? That is not only completely ridiculous fanciful thinking not grounded in reality, it runs contrary to modern history.

I opened the topic discussing the Salvadorian civil war so I might as well go back to it - link:


Or perhaps Nigeria:


The historical pattern here is that these civil wars kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people over a period of years, they completely destroy any infrastructure in the country and people are scarred by them for years afterward - few countries move on to prosperity.

The United States is probably close to unique in that regard.


Exactly. I remember predicting this from early on, sure is hard to be right.

1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

I think I prefer the good ol' dictionary:

civil war n. : A war between factions or regions of the same country. (American Heritage)

civil war n. : a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country (Merriam Webster)

Of course, both of those are contingent on the definition of "war":

war n. : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties (American Heritage)

war n. : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (Merriam Webster)

So, we have either "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict between factions or regions of the same country" or "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between opposing groups of citizens of the same country". I'd say either definition is "commonly accepted".

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

Yes. Next?

[
Questions for debate:
1. How do you define Civil War, does the wikipedia definition cover it or do you have your own? Do you feel your definition is a commonly accepted definition?

2. Based on that definition is Iraq in a civil war?

[/quote]


um lets talk about civil war. America did not have a civil war. If you call invading a sovriegn country a civil war well then your wrong. a civil war is a war between to different sides from the same country. The United States Where never apart of the Confederate states(vice versa). They where to different countrys fighting each other. now back to iraq. CIVIL WAR?????????? when did this happen because i'm damn sure cnn would be all over it!!!! well there you go cnn reports everything bad with iraq and the president but they don't see a civil war?????? how come i thought the"Communist News Network " would be all over it. So no there is no "Iraqi Civil War"


ok if sunnis kill shiites and blacks kill whites and hispanics kill blacks thats not a civil war???????????????

yogurt.. great name. but back to the topic on hand if it where up to me we wouldn't be in iraq right now we would have gone to iran first to intimidate saddam. come on we go to iraq defeat the sorriest army on earth(besides all thoses african countrys) and to what rebuild when there government cant function i think we should have appointed the most effective leader not let them vote on one then in maybe 6 years hold there next presidential election