http://www.military.com/blog/op-for
Question of the Day
Aug 21, 2006

Since we seem to be on the topic, our question of the day is:

Has Iraq degenerated into Civil War?


TrackBack (0) | Comments (19)

Comments on this Entry:

(Nicholas on Aug 20, 2006 7:32 PM) If you define a civil war as "any significant level of violence where at least some of the violence is aimed at wresting control of a country from its government" then I suppose it is. Myself, I think that's an overbroad definition of a civil war. I think it makes a number of situations in other countries become "civil wars" when previously nobody would have considered them as such. And given that a lot of the violence in Iraq is sectarian or terrorist in nature, I don't think it's a very helpful term to use to describe the situation. But there clearly are some groups fighting for power. What percentage of the violence is with power in mind? I don't know.. anyone care to guess? My gut feeling is it's not the majority by a long shot.

(Bingo Charlie on Aug 20, 2006 7:37 PM) Agreed Nicholas. To call Iraq a civil war is a huge stretch. It just comes off as panicy liberals with no knowledge of warfare trying to make Iraq look like a failure.

(Lloyd on Aug 20, 2006 7:44 PM) Is what the IRA did in Northern Ireland a civil war? The parallel seems worth looking at. Certainly the Iraqi government needs to assert more control over Baghdad and the Sunni areas. And get rid of a certain Shiite militia leader, too. But too many parts of Iraq are relatively at peace for this to be a civil war.

(Nicholas on Aug 20, 2006 8:50 PM) An additional thought: compare and contrast to the situation in Sri Lanka. There is also a low-level multi-decade conflict there which has claimed many lives. However, (a) there is a primary anti-government organization which is responsible for most of the violence, and ( its goals are mostly political. I'm not an expert on Sri Lanka but there doesn't seem to be much of a religious divide like there is in Iraq, and there are also no real reasons for the Tamil Tigers to commit acts of terrorism for worldwide media coverage, other than simply to bring attention to their existence. I think it's an interesting parallel.. anyone else have additional thoughts?

(Nicholas on Aug 20, 2006 8:52 PM) Oh I forgot to add, the Sri Lanka/Tamil Tigers war seems to be generally described as a civil war. But as I pointed out, I think the reasons why that is valid to not *necessarily* apply to Iraq.

(Grumpy on Aug 20, 2006 9:28 PM) Does it really matter? The fact you are raising the question just may be your own answer. The Iraqi people need to tell us what they want. But if they are not interested in building a democracy, then this becomes a military decision. By this, I mean the actual "boots on the ground". If the civilian leadership of the military and this government think this is so important then, they themselves should put themselves or their own families in the "line of fire". We need to remember, this region has been fighting since the beginning of time and they will fight until the end of time. Grumpy

(Huan on Aug 21, 2006 3:16 AM) If it is not already in a civil war, perhaps it should. Sure it will be slightly bloodier, but probably not by much. When one side cannot accept peace, it must be made to accept defeat. This extend to both the Sunni insurgents and the Sadr militia. Peace can only exists with willing participants. Then the Iraqi can get back to rebuilding their country.

(goesh on Aug 21, 2006 3:47 AM) It's not a civil war - it is revenge killing by ignorant religious fanatics, fueled by terrorists supported by Iran. Al Sadr should have been taken out with a missle a long, long time ago and another line drawn in the sand with Iran. It is in Iran's interest to keep the blood flowing. We all know it and we all know reconstruction dollars will keep flowing as long as the blood flows too.

(Nicholas on Aug 21, 2006 4:36 AM) *sigh* as usual someone (Grumpy) can't manage to write two sentences without dusting off the Chickenhawk fallacy. I agree that Sadr is enough of a destabilising influence that he should probably just be eliminated for the greater good of the country.

(saw1 on Aug 21, 2006 4:39 AM) Not a civil war yet. Although AQ, Iran, and the MSM are trying their best to make it one. It is time to do something about Al Sadr/Iran. It seems like maybe we are waiting for the Iraqi army to be up to the task, but if they are not ready yet we need to do it ourselves. This might actually help prevent a civil war if we do it as a third party heading off a round of internal retaliation/fueds.

(Mrs. Davis on Aug 21, 2006 5:36 AM) What difference does it make? What if we called the situation there a banana?

(Sarah Belle on Aug 21, 2006 7:29 AM) it is an exaggeration to call it a civil war. i think your post below sums that up best, john

(Toadjoy on Aug 21, 2006 7:39 AM) Thanks to rightwingofascists, Iraq is worse than it was before Saddam Hussein. I hope the oil was worth it sure bushcheneyrumsfeld will be high on the hog after they impeached with big oil money.

(Dan Irving on Aug 21, 2006 8:02 AM) Wow .. a whole 12 comments before a troll sniffed out this thread ...

(Doug on Aug 21, 2006 8:16 AM) It's not a civil war. As was stated there is no declared group fighting to depose the government. Many of the smaller groups doing the fighting might wish to take over, but beside Sunni killing Shia and vice versa, much of the violence is crimminal. Gang warfare might be a better definiition.

(Soldier's Dad on Aug 21, 2006 8:45 AM) There weren't any revenge attacks today for yesterdays sniper attacks on the Shiite procession. If there was a Civil War, it is over. The Question is a moot point.

(Preacher on Aug 21, 2006 9:28 AM) And what if there is a civil war? At one time the people of Iraq were too afraid to fight anyone. Now they have the freedom to voice their disagreements. Will these voiced disagreements result in bloodshed? Undoubtedly. But Iraq will not be forgotten about by the world community. America and the coalition are still there to help and so is the UN (like it or not). It is in no one's interest to allow the situation in Iraq to continue to degenerate and eventually implode. People, organizations, and countries are going to put forth the effort to make sure are past efforts don't go in vain. At one time in Iraq, dissent was answered by death for the dissenter and his family. Now people have the freedom to voice their opinions. The people of Iraq are going to figure things out, but there is a lot of healing that needs to take place. It's going to be a long process and it's going to hurt a lot for a while.

(Anna on Aug 21, 2006 10:36 AM) Don't forget some of those fighting are neither Shiite nor Sunni nor even Iraqis, but are actually agents of Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria or other outside factions wanting to keep Iraq off balance.

(JimPv on Aug 21, 2006 10:58 AM) Yes, it is a civil war. And America does not have a dog in that fight, so let's get out.

http://www.military.com/blog/op-for#blog3

I Don't Need Your Civil War
Aug 21, 2006

Washington, DC's quaint and amusing local paper on the Iraqi ground sit:

The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war.
Negative, Ghostrider. Dan Bryan and Kenneth Pollack need to check aim before they fire, because we've got a long way to go before anyone can wave the checkered flag on the "civil war" debate.

A civil war would constitute a major faction of the Iraqi demographic, represented in Parliament, withdrawing from the government, declaring independence, and defending that independence through the force of arms. That hasn't happened.

In-fighting does not equal civil war. If so, we would have called Shay's Rebellion the First American Civil War. Localized, secretarian violence isn't a civil war, it's a mob war. Civil Wars are fought at all three levels of warfare, strategic, operational, and tactical. Iraq is being fought almost exclusively at the tactical level.

That sure to hell doesn't put the fork in any argument, nor does it make Iraq one step up from Balkan-esque violence.

Of course, the day I take military advice from WaPo columnists is the day Hell hosts an ice cream social.


TrackBack (0) | Comments (7)

Comments on this Entry:

(Cynthia on Aug 20, 2006 9:55 PM) Delicately put as always John.

(Brett on Aug 21, 2006 2:55 AM) This may be a ridiculously stupid question (I hope you'll forgive a civvie his ignorance), but what exactly is the difference between Tactical, Strategic, and Operational? I have the most basic idea, but it'd be nice to get a clearer explanation. Thanks guys! Keep up the good work. - B

(saw1 on Aug 21, 2006 4:28 AM) But "Civil War" makes much better headlines than "Sectarian Violence". Plus the MSM has to declare anything the Bush administration is involved in a failure before November elections. (Although that "secretarian violence" you mentioned could get nasty. Sorry, I usually ignore typos since I can't type at all, but the mental picture on that one was funny.)

(MarkQ on Aug 21, 2006 4:44 AM) I agree. I like the use of Shay's Rebellion. Our beginnings were not too pretty either. And that was after WE fought for 5 years to earn the right. I also believe to qualify as a civil war both participants have to be of the same country. I believe we will find those instigating these outburst are foreign insurgents.

(Merv Benson on Aug 21, 2006 6:15 AM) A civil war usually implies factions fighting for power by shooting at each other. This rarely happens in Iraq because all of these factions are too weak to attempt combat with anyone who can shoot back. What is happening is that the various factions are concentrating on killing the non combatants of the other side. Besides being a war crime and a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has to be one of the most cowardly form of warfare in recent history. It certainly implies a strategy based on bigotry and genocide instead of your normal fight for power.

(Andy on Aug 21, 2006 8:08 AM) This debate about "civil war" or not is pointless. We're arguing semantics. It doesn't change what we have to do or the situation on the ground.

(John on Aug 21, 2006 8:34 AM) the war in Iraq is 90% political, 10% military Andy. Language is important.