Mr. Bush, please define "civil war"

[kimemerson 7]

Every dictionary I consult tells me that a civil war is a war between two groups in the same country. That's simplified but that's also about it. So what does Bush & Co. have invested in insisting Iraq is not engaged in a civil war? Ok, Rather than debate whether Iraq is in a civil war, could someone just describe to me what IS going on there, and then let's see how that stacks up to the definition of civil war.

I asked this question to friends, and one answer was that Bush et al simply don't want to admit any sort of defeat. But isn't there a difference between admitting defeat and accepting truth? Isn't there some value to recognizing what's really happening before your eyes so that you can act appropriately? If there is one way to respond to a civil war and another way to respond "assassins & thugs" or insurgents or adversaries or the enemy or terrorists, then isn't there some wisdom in getting the definitions - thereby the understanding - of what you're up to your eyeballs in?

So is it a civil war, does it matter, and why won't Bush, Rummy, Condi, Dick and the rest allow some truth. Just give me some truth, as John Lennon might have said.

[CDRINF 1]

I just got back from Iraq less than a month ago. "Civil War" makes a good sound bite, and that's why you hear it. What is going on in the last month is not much different from what has been going on for the last 3 years. Just a new spin.

It is also not, as simple as Sunni vs Shia. It's not like they are going to line up on opposite sides in Blue and Gray and start fighting it out. If only it were that simple! The culture is very complex, with many tribal and cultural divisions. Family/tribal ties trump national and religious ones every time. There are many competing groups, everyone has a hidden agenda, and they switch sides very quickly based on what the particular group thinks is in their interests.

In the area I was in, the dominant tribe ratted out the foreign fighters and sided with us, because they figured that siding with us was now more in their interest than siding with the foreign fighters. Then the dominant tribe wanted to make sure that they got the lion's share of the police academy slots, because, after all, if your cousin is the police chief, that makes life easier. Its more like a large scale, live version of "The Sopranos" than anything else.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

I just got back from Iraq less than a month ago. "Civil War" makes a good sound bite, and that's why you hear it. What is going on in the last month is not much different from what has been going on for the last 3 years. Just a new spin.

It is also not, as simple as Sunni vs Shia. It's not like they are going to line up on opposite sides in Blue and Gray and start fighting it out. If only it were that simple! The culture is very complex, with many tribal and cultural divisions. Family/tribal ties trump national and religious ones every time. There are many competing groups, everyone has a hidden agenda, and they switch sides very quickly based on what the particular group thinks is in their interests.

In the area I was in, the dominant tribe ratted out the foreign fighters and sided with us, because they figured that siding with us was now more in their interest than siding with the foreign fighters. Then the dominant tribe wanted to make sure that they got the lion's share of the police academy slots, because, after all, if your cousin is the police chief, that makes life easier. Its more like a large scale, live version of "The Sopranos" than anything else.

Thanks for your post. Interesting perspective. Seems you understand the complexity of the situation far better then the US administration. From what I have seen, Bush still just talks about "good guys" and "bad guys" and that all those committing violence are "terrorists".

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[likearock 1]

Quote

Every dictionary I consult tells me that a civil war is a war between two groups in the same country. That's simplified but that's also about it.

It's also a question of scale. In Spain, they've had to deal with sporadic violence with the Basque separatists but few would categorize that as a civil war. I'd say that the insurgency in Iraq is currently closer to that than to a full blown civil war. But it could always get worse.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Do you understand the difference between Civil War and Civil Unrest? Iraq is experiencing some growing pains as all countries in transition do. The press is whipping it up to be more than it really is because it gets the lefties in a tizzy and gives them a reason to hate Bush.

I'd suggest you spend time talking and listening to people who have actually been there and then ask yourself why the stories they tell are so different than what you read by the MSM and hear from the Armchair Generals.

-

[Channman 2]

> The press is whipping it up to be more than it really is because it gets the lefties in a tizzy and gives them a reason to hate Bush.

It should not be misunderstood, the press is invested in American defeat, they are wagging a war as well, and have been so far successful in getting the American People to become a bunch of whinning cry babies, with no back bone.

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

Thanks for your post. Interesting perspective. Seems you understand the complexity of the situation far better then the US administration. From what I have seen, Bush still just talks about "good guys" and "bad guys" and that all those committing violence are "terrorists".

What the President of the USA says in public and what he understands of the situation may be markedly different. It's very difficult to get the complexities of a given issue into a five second soundbite, which is what is required for communication with the populace who elected him.

Simplification inevitably occurs.

[sixtysevengt5oo 0]

Quote

> It should not be misunderstood, the press is invested in American defeat, they are wagging a war as well, and have been so far successful in getting the American People to become a bunch of whinning cry babies, with no back bone.

For one thing, the press says what it think the american people want to hear, ay what they want and they will listen, america wants a win, but a win means there isnt anything to report on anymore, that is why they report about what we dont want to hear.

Adie from that though i would love some elaboration on how the american pubic are a bunch of whinning cry babies with no backbone.

I would personally think that if we just said you doing great Bush keep on keepin on, and not challenging what we dont agree with, or have learned to disagree with, would be more spineless, more cowardly, more weak, than actually standing and speaking for what we believe, and right now a large portion is standing up and asking for answers., they are challenging bush on his decisions cause they obviously havent worked yet, we arent saying that we wanted a miricle war that lasted 2 weeks and enstilled a credible stable government over night, most of them just want progress not regress. I also dont think that those people that believe in the war and beleive that what we are doing is right and stand for that are cowards, i think the only coward or cry baby is the one that sits by and does nothing for fear of opressinon, its the people like that that allow the government to "get away with murder." And if you want my honest opinion i think those of you that find people like me to be whinning cry babies are mindless pawns of a corrupt government that are lead astray and off a cliff by a sadistic herder. If you truely believe in what we are doing in iraq, then find a way to justify what we are doing dont try to denounce those that disagree with petty childish comments, use your mind instead.

The only triumph of evil is for good men and women to stand by and do/say nothing.

No one can say objectively who is good and who is evil, so everyone must stand and voice their opinions and act on those opinions or else we are bound to fall to evils plan sooner or later. Think about that for a while.

[kimemerson 7]

Well, I pretty much was curious as to what constitutes a civil war - without the hairsplitting civil war vs civil unrest thing. (And when does 'unrest' become war? Most warring sides might have a trace of unrest somewhere in the history of the war) They are in fact killing each other. I was also wondering if the distinction matters. And finally, I was wondering why the administration argues that it is not a civil war. Others say it it is. Does it matter? How? To what advantage? If it does matter, why would someone insist it is a civil war and someone insist it isn't? For arguement sake for the moment here, let's say Iraq is in a civil war. So? Do we care that it has become a civil war? Does Bush have an interest in not allowing the 'unrest' to be a civil war? And please, don't give me any more of that anti-liberal whining crybaby liberal media bullshit either. Conservative mantras and regurgitated bumper sticker logic is getting both tired and out of hand. Aside from the fact most of it is poorly informed if informed at all.

My question has less to do with political leanings than defining a situation and recognizing it for what it is. So far, I don't see where the original questions were addressed. I didn't ask about the press either. And while I appreciate the perspective of anyone who has been there, I also know it isn't only military men & women who have been there. Many civilians - liberal and conservative - are there and have interesting perspectives as well. I have spoken with military and civilian. Talking to them does nothing to answer my questions to you, the skydivers who, for the most part, are not over there, but are here making opinions and decisions based on what we hear and trust and believe.
So: 1. Is it? 2. Does it matter? 3. Why insist one way or another?

[sixtysevengt5oo 0]

Yeah its always good to get back on topic, sorry about my earlier rant, it pissed me off.

Anyways, if i were the make an argument about what it is or is not, and how that matters, honestly i would focus on rhetoric, the way phrases sound and what connotations are brought with them. Civil unrest sounds less severe than civil war. Insurgency sounds more evil, all of these different words and phrases generally mean the same thing but are thought of in different ways.

Civil war-A war between factions or regions of the same country

Civil Unrest- typically used by law enforcement to describe one or more forms of disturbance caused by a group of people. Civil disturbance is typically a symptom of, and a form of protest against, major socio-political problems

Insergency- The quality or circumstance of being rebellious

At what specific point does a civil unrest become an insurgency become a civil war, no one really knows, they are objective adjectives. President Bush will mostlikely never call it a civil war, it sounds as though we threw the country into something worse than it was when we started, a civil unrest or insurgency sounds like something that can be quelled by normal law enforcement procedures. The only people qualified to say what it is are the soldiers that have been there, especially those that have been there for multiple tours to see how the climate has changed. It also carries with it a stratagy to control the situation, this is where the media and the american public do play a part really. Americans dont want to hear civil war that means that radical control measures have to be inacted, most likely meaning more troops, more time, and more money, three things we dont want, and the president def. wont say something we dont want to hear. An insurgency sounds like something that is under control and will just take a little time to quell before we can get back to the drudgery of cleanup and government building.

I think its a pretty cool answer to a very good question, i've always enjoyed critiquing and examining rhetoric, and taking note of how effective changing one word in a 20 min speech can completely change the meaning of the entire thing, and if you listen to President Bush's speeches your will quickly realize that his speech writer is a lingustic genius that has his words slaughterd by who i believe to be a half-illeterate war mongrel, but thats beside the point. Keep this thread going, its pretty cool.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

It is also not, as simple as Sunni vs Shia. It's not like they are going to line up on opposite sides in Blue and Gray and start fighting it out. If only it were that simple! The culture is very complex, with many tribal and cultural divisions. Family/tribal ties trump national and religious ones every time. There are many competing groups, everyone has a hidden agenda, and they switch sides very quickly based on what the particular group thinks is in their interests.

It seems that this is exactly why democracy will never actually take root in the M.E.. Depending who is winning at the time is the side the people support. Also, as you pointed out, hidden agenda.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 2,400]

>It should not be misunderstood, the press is invested in American
> defeat, they are wagging a war as well, and have been so far
> successful in getting the American People to become a bunch of'
> whinning cry babies, with no back bone.

On the plus side, the administration has managed to give Iraq a backbone. Heck, before we invaded they were a peaceful (albeit cowed) people. Now they're killing each other left and right! (And are getting ever more skilled at killing US troops.)

[Channman 2]

> You must be making a funny.

> Now they're killing each other left and right!

They were some 300,000 plus in mass graves before we arrived, and they are still piling them up even as we speak.

Yea, its a nasty business we are in over there, but one I believe was worth getting involved. The peacful religion of Islam is very much in the business of sending masses of their fellow man to the Kingdom of Heaven. Although we have been in their sights from time to time, the people of Iraq have suffered from evil as I see it long enough.

These killers have exported their killing long enough and its been along time coming that someone willing to stand up to their madness bring them to account.

Is it a Civil War, maybe in the view of some, maybe not in the view of others, however to many its just another day of muslim killing muslim and no one really knows why other than its seems to be a national past time.

[billvon 2,400]

> They were some 300,000 plus in mass graves before we arrived,
>and they are still piling them up even as we speak.

Agreed. We have helped them restart the mass-grave business, which is unfortunate.

>Is it a Civil War, maybe in the view of some, maybe not in the view
> of others, however to many its just another day of muslim killing
> muslim . . .

And christians killing muslims, and muslims killing christians. But far more christians killing muslims than vice versa.

> no one really knows why other than its seems to be a national past time.

Agreed there. We should stop making it a national pasttime, and start expending our energies in more useful directions.

[wmw999 2,122]

If they'd just be more like us they'd understand why we're over there and agree with us

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[gkc1436 3]

this is an easy one

it's not a civil war until ol georgie lands on a aircraft carrier and says it is!

g

[Amazon 7]

I think the saying goes...... No war is ever civil.

[billvon 2,400]

>Iraq is experiencing some growing pains . . .

Updates:

-----------------
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Snipers held rooftop positions as masked Sunni Arab insurgents said they were gearing up for another open street battle with pro-government Shi'ite militiamen in Baghdad's Adhamiya district on Tuesday.

The Arab Sunni stronghold is still feeling ripples from overnight clashes on Monday that appeared to be the closest yet to all-out sectarian fighting.

. . .

It appeared to be the first example of a large-scale, open sectarian street battle in the capital, if not all of Iraq.
-----------------

But fear not! We will soon re-liberate Baghdad:


-----------------
US plots ‘new liberation of Baghdad’
Sarah Baxter , Washington

THE American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdad” to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed.
Pacifying the lawless capital is regarded as essential to establishing the authority of the incoming government and preparing for a significant withdrawal of American troops.

The Iraqi government, when it is finally formed, will also need to demonstrate that it is in charge of its own seat of government. “It will be the second liberation of Baghdad,” said Daniel Gouré, a Pentagon adviser and vice-president of the Lexington Institute, a military think tank. “The new government will be able to claim it is taking back the streets.”
--------------------

Excellent. I am sure we will be greeted as liberators. This next liberation could take six days, six weeks - I doubt six months.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Good to see the Iraqi Troops taking a broader role in securing their own country.

Please define for us the difference between Civil Unrest and Civil War. (Assuming you understand the difference, of course).

Very few people can look at the number of American and Iraqi troops being killed in a decline and see that as an escalation of Civil War.

-

-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Updates:

Quote

BALAD, Iraq, April 18, 2006 — Iraqi soldiers assumed control of part of Salah al Din Province from the U.S. Army 1-8 Combined Arms Battalion in a Transfer of Authority ceremony at an Iraqi army outpost near Balad, Iraq, April 15. The 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division is assuming control of an area of responsibility that encompasses Balad, Al Duluyah and Yethrib, as well as the smaller villages surrounding these cities.

“This battalion could not conduct this operation without the cooperation from all the citizens in the area,” said Lt. Col. Hamed, commander, 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Division. “By this cooperation we are creating a safer environment for all Iraqis.”

The cooperation of the citizens, as well as the cooperation with coalition forces, has allowed the 3rd Battalion to be successful in providing security in this region as well as ridding it of insurgents.

Ohhhh .....(hand wringing) Everything is sooooo terrible.

Ohhhh..... whoa is me.

-

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Updates:

Quote

BALAD, Iraq, April 18, 2006 — Iraqi soldiers assumed control of part of Salah al Din Province from the U.S. Army 1-8 Combined Arms Battalion in a Transfer of Authority ceremony at an Iraqi army outpost near Balad, Iraq, April 15. The 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division is assuming control of an area of responsibility that encompasses Balad, Al Duluyah and Yethrib, as well as the smaller villages surrounding these cities.

“This battalion could not conduct this operation without the cooperation from all the citizens in the area,” said Lt. Col. Hamed, commander, 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Division. “By this cooperation we are creating a safer environment for all Iraqis.”

The cooperation of the citizens, as well as the cooperation with coalition forces, has allowed the 3rd Battalion to be successful in providing security in this region as well as ridding it of insurgents.

Ohhhh .....(hand wringing) Everything is sooooo terrible.

Ohhhh..... whoa is me.

-

Oh but but it's a lie concocted in Texas to sooth us sheeple

[billvon 2,400]

> Please define for us the difference between Civil Unrest and Civil
>War. (Assuming you understand the difference, of course).

Civil unrest involves rioting, strikes, government crackdowns, curfews, arrests etc.

Civil war involves people killing each other by the thousands with military weapons. Mass graves, death squads, torture chambers and the like generally go along with wars rather than unrests.

>Very few people can look at the number of American and Iraqi troops
>being killed in a decline and see that as an escalation of Civil War.

Most americans DO think it's becoming a civil war. More importantly, most of the people I've talked to who have come back from Iraq think there is that level of violence there.

Why is it important? Because closing your eyes, clicking your heels together and saying "there's no civil war, there's no civil war" doesn't help improve things. Making real changes in our actions might - but you can't fix the problem until you admit there is one.

We're still steadily losing US soldiers, and the numbers are going UP, not down. (31 last month, 48 so far this month.) They deserve better than "business as usual."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

We're still steadily losing US soldiers, and the numbers are going UP, not down. (31 last month, 48 so far this month.) They deserve better than "business as usual."

How about wrong as usual?

05/03/03 - 06/28/04 Soverienty turned over to Iraq -718 Approx 55 per month

06/29/04 - 01/30/05 - Iraqi Elections -579 Approx 83 per month

01/31/05 - 12/14/05 - Iraq General Elections -715 Approx 60 per month

12/15/05 - 04/16/06 - Current -225 Approx 56 per month

I wonder how anyone can look at these stats and conclude the death rate is going up.


Edited to add: These are US Soldiers deaths.

-

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

We're still steadily losing US soldiers, and the numbers are going UP, not down. (31 last month, 48 so far this month.) They deserve better than "business as usual."

How about wrong as usual?

05/03/03 - 06/28/04 Soverienty turned over to Iraq -718 Approx 55 per month

06/29/04 - 01/30/05 - Iraqi Elections -579 Approx 83 per month

01/31/05 - 12/14/05 - Iraq General Elections -715 Approx 60 per month

12/15/05 - 04/16/06 - Current -225 Approx 56 per month

I wonder how anyone can look at these stats and conclude the death rate is going up.


Edited to add: These are US Soldiers deaths.

-

Come on!! You know facts don't count. Only the emotion.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

05/03/03 - 06/28/04 Soverienty turned over to Iraq -718 Approx 55 per month

06/29/04 - 01/30/05 - Iraqi Elections -579 Approx 83 per month

01/31/05 - 12/14/05 - Iraq General Elections -715 Approx 60 per month

12/15/05 - 04/16/06 - Current -225 Approx 56 per month

I wonder how anyone can look at these stats and conclude the death rate is going up.


Edited to add: These are US Soldiers deaths.

-