Not just the media, and not just "liberals" either. Several Republican members of congress are saying it as well. The former PM, is saying it. So?

Clearly your definiton is so narrow as not to be credible. Try starting your approach from the disentgration of Yugoslavia when Slovenia pulled away and fought with the Serbs. Disentegration does not have to be some spectacular event.

PC,

The most dangerous place to be in Wash DC is between a politican and a headline. Truth is just roadkill for these people if it means they get their names in the papers and pictures on TV.

Robert M,

The Wars of Yugoslav Succession are separate events.

The War of Slovenian secession saw the Slovenian militia defeat the Jugoslav Army in a stand up fight. This was what amounted to a foreign invasion of Slovenia.

The War of Croation Secession started with the "War of the Barracks" -- where the JA tried to seize the Croation militia's stock of weapons and pretty much ended after the Siege and Fall of Vukovar and the seizer of majority-Serb Croation territory.

The Bosnian Muslims, unlike the Croats, did not contest the theft of its militia stores, counting on the "International community" to protect it. This is why they had the sieges of Sarajevo and the Bihac pocket, ethnic cleansing of the Muslims in the countryside by their Serb neighbors and the mass murders at Srebnecia.

The War in Bosnia ended with the Dayton Accords after the Clinton Administration intervened and used the Croats, American mercenaries of Military Professional Resources Inc, and the United States Air Force in Operation Storm to militarily defeat Bosnian Serb forces.

The final war of Jugoslav succession was the Albanian Uprising and American/NATO air campaign of 1999 that eventually saw the fall of Milosevic's government.

Of the various wars, the one that was a real civil war, as opposed to the emergence of new nations, was the civil war in Bosnia Herzegovina. That is why I chose it as an apples to apples comparison to Iraq.

Hello,
I found nice site to see peoples from all world.
Faces of countries with poeople's portreaits ;)
It's realy cool ;)

www.areaface.com

Clearly, you're the one spewing propaganda.

You think your little semantic games will change the reality in Iraq that there is fighting among civil DOMESTIC FACTIONS for control of the government. It is violent, so it is a war.

Hence CIVIL WAR is a perfectly accurate way to describe it.

What you are trying to argue (comically) is that for a conflict to qualify as a "civil war", some minimum number of casualties must be tallied. Neither the word "civil" nor the word "war" requires such an artificial threshold.

To illustrate the utter foolishness of your argument, you just have to consider the number of casualties in Iraq. We've lost about 2300 of our people, far far fewer than WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. On the other hand, 30-60,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.

Then there's domestic terrorism. How many US civilians have lost their lives because of terrorist attacks in US soil? Maybe 4000.

By your definition, we cannot define our involvement in either one of these as a "war".

So, unless you want to continue to reveal yourself to be the propaganda-spouting hypocrite that you are, you need to stop calling the Iraq conflict and the fight against terrorism "wars".

And so as not to pass up another teaching moment, consider the definition of "propaganda", reproduced here to illustrate how closely your post hews to it by attacking the Corporate Media with the Bush administrations party linie:

"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."

So how long has the civil war lasted (greater than 100 deaths per day every day)?

About a week.

I think this shows how great our news media really is. Had they not trumpeted it we might have missed it.

BTW don't forget the Civil War in America between the Bloods, Crips, and the LAPD.

It is a shame the papers are just dealing with that as a criminal issue rather than a war due to territorial ambitions.

I didn't know the Gangs of LA were fighting for political control of the federal government.

Gee, I should really hang out with Neocons more often. You really can learn a lot.

"It is violent, so it is a war"

Last time I got a root canal, the dentist held me in the chair. There was screaming, thrashing, pain. It was war, I tell you! And I had to pay the bill. Even when I couldn't afford it.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands Americans killed each year by heart disease. Dead, I tell you. All because of fast food. When will we stop supporting the evil Burger King and his minions?

This is just silly. Come on, Iraq is not anything like a war, civil or otherwise. A few hundred killed a month? What kind of war is that, anyway? We killed something like four thousand French civilians during D-Day, for goodness sake. Hundreds of cab drivers die each year because of violence. Should we stop running cabs?

You can say people are playing semantic games all you want, but words have to have some kind of meaning. A dog is a dog, not a tree. And whatever we got in Iraq, it ain't a civil war. That much is obvious.

"Clearly, you're the one spewing propaganda.

You think your little semantic games will change the reality in Iraq that there is fighting among civil DOMESTIC FACTIONS for control of the government. It is violent, so it is a war.

Hence CIVIL WAR is a perfectly accurate way to describe it."

OK, fine. Let's for a second use your definition of 'civil war', that there is fighting between domestic factions for control of the government. Well, strictly speaking, under that definition the American Civil war doesn't qualify as a civil war, since at no time were the Southern states fighting to gain control of the Federal government. The Southern states wanted independence, and not domination over the Northern ones. Of course, what you said is probably not strictly what you actually meant. What you probably meant was that a civil war was defined as fighting between domestic factions for control one's own governance, whether in part or in whole.

But, even this broader definition fails. If we use that looser definition of what you said, then the nations of Thailand, India, Phillipines, and Russia all meet the terms of the definition and are in ongoing 'civil wars'. In fact, in the case of India in absolute terms of deaths, the number of people dying from internal conflict at its height exceeded the yearly deaths in Iraq, and yet at no time did you hear the press term the conflict - then or now - a 'civil war'. That is because the term 'civil war' carries with it certain expectations about the conflict. If I were to say, 'Indian Civil War' or 'Russian Civil War' the images conjured to mind would not be of those things that are actually happening.

Look, if you want to press for your overly broad definition of 'civil war' then lets apply the term equally. By your definition, even countries like Spain are in a state of civil war. But then, if we do that, it would become clear in a hurry that you are the one playing the symantic games. In particular, what you are trying to argue is that the phrase 'civil war' means something based on the meaning of its component parts. I think someone should have informed you of the meaning of the phrase 'compound word' at some point in your education.

In ought to be completely clear to anyone that in conflicts in general and civil conflicts in particular that there is a broad spectrum of intensity. In the case of civil conflicts, this spectrum shades through various grays from politically motivated crimes, to civil disobediance, to civil unrest, all the way up to civil war. When you describe something as a civil war, you are making a claim of degree, and in particular you are making a claim that the conflict's intensity has reached a level of 'highest degree'.

The problem of course with that, is that its easy to go back to the summer of 2005 and find that the intensity of the conflict then exceeded that of now. No one called it a 'civil war' then, and to the extent that they did, it didn't suddenly slide more to civil war any time recently.

What's really going on now is moving goal posts. Last summer (and the summer before that) the domestic opposition in this country were predicting a Sunni insurgency victory. Now that it is clear that is not going to happen, they are defining it as victory that the Sunni insurgency merely incite the other communities into a violent reprisal (one which the Sunni community would certainly lose). In other words, by moving the terms of the debate from 'insurgency' to 'civil war', they can change the terms of 'defeat' and hide the fact that the Sunni insurgency has failed, that it was militarily defeated, and that it has been forced to largely end military actions (because they were losing) and turn to a campaign of pure terrorism against the civilian population.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of insurgencies and terrorist campaigns will look at history and conclude that turning against the native population is a losing strategy.

"I didn't know the Gangs of LA were fighting for political control of the federal government.

Gee, I should really hang out with Neocons more often. You really can learn a lot."

Wizener: Really. One of the marks of a troll is that he directs his replies only against the weakest arguments made on the whole thread, and then claims triumphantly to have dismissed the arguments of everyone on the thread.

M. Simon's remark may have partly missed the mark, but so does your reply. The Confederate States of America weren't fighting for political control of the federal government either. Rather than focusing on how M. Simon's remark fails to catch all the nuances of a civil war, why don't you spend some time thinking about how your definition doesn't either.

M. Simon may have gotten caught up in the intensity question and made a less than perfect analogy, but that is somewhat understandable given that what is being argued is that the phrase 'civil war' contains a certain expectation of intensity and those calling such a statement 'propaganda' are arguing 'oh no it doesn't'.

The Iraq War could be called something other than a war if in fact it didn't at various times involve an invasion by armored columns, the movement of divisions, brigade and higher level combat operations, and massive arial bombardments. That relatively few people have died in it is a testimony to the competance of the US armed forces and the degree to which we try to avoid colateral damage. It is not a testimony to the degree of intensity with which the conflict was engaged, and there is nothing at all hypocritical about claiming that the Iraq War is a war without qualifier, but that the domestic conflict has not reached a stage that should be deemed without qualifier a 'civil war'. The tangible aspects of a war are there, those aforementioned armored columns and brigade level combat operations. The tangible aspects of a civil war are not there.

As it happened with "terrorism", now is the term "civil war" being stretched in its definition to fit any and all agendas.

I think that Lee Harris introduced the more accurate term of "tribal anarchy", though even that has not occurred to a full degree.

#9,

Their ambitions are not that high yet. Local control (warlodism) currently suits their current abilities. Still since it is for territorialk control it must be a civil war no?

Ralph Peters complained recently that the MSM’s reporters were all “phoning in” reports from stringers while hiding in hotels in Baghdad’s green zone.

As he hid embedded with US troops. And told flat out lies about the success of reconstruction.

But hey, at least he bothered to go over there before mindlessly cheering.

Having problems with a VISA? I hear we've got a swell embassy there now.

Surely you'd be more effective dispelling the lies of the eemmesssemmm in Basra right?

Anything would be more convincing than this tripe.

While I agree that there is no current "civil war" occurring within Iraq, your premise that Civilian Deaths = Civil War is seems fallacious. I would add further that by definition, the Republicans and Democrats are engaged in a civil war.

I would note to Wizener that he take a look at who is fighting in Iraq. This is not Somalia, where rival tribes/gangs took sides for control of a crumbling nation, nor is this Serbia, those were civil wars.

Iraq has outside agitators funding an insurgency that is attacking the power structure that is collaborating with MNF troops. This is clearly not Civil War by any definition; that is terrorism. The Bathists know they will never regain power again; it would be futile for them to attempt to do so by force, when so much of the populace is against them. I think there is ample evidence to support that most if not all of the violence occurring within Iraq is outside funded and organized. The al Qaeda groups moved in to the power vacuum and recruited from within the country former Bathists who fell out of power. Their goal is not to regain power, but to drive out MNF forces, this does not make the current conflict a civil war.

There is a true ignorance among outside viewers to the Iraq conflict when they base all aspects of the conflict on religious factions. Iraq has always had a strong national identity that transcends religious sects. The al Sadr’s may make small power plays for a local area, but their national sway is nearly non-existent. To couch this as a Sunni/Shia civil war is to expose an utter ignorance of Iraqi history.

The term "civil war" has almost always been used exclusively to describe largely internal organized challenges to the control of the State, either through a war of secession or autonomy or violent contest for control of the State apparatus. That these are organized struggles is reflected in the fact that the rebels will claim de facto control over some territory as a power base.

What is happening in Iraq has not risen to the level of an organized attempt to create a different State. There may be groups hoping for that to occur. There have been people in history like James Brown and Guy Fawkes that have hoped that acts of violence would instigate civil war, but they failed.

There are people in Iraq today that are seeking revenge, which instigates its own pattern of revenge killings. That sort of tribalism does not seek to create a new state, but satisfies a desire that the State is too weak to stop.

The day that someone like Sadr stands up and announces an uprising against the Iraqi government and its Western allies, will be the day that a civil war looms. Sadr would likely be dead in a weak, which explains why some of the parties that might desire a civil war will only operate at a low-level insurgency level until the Iraqi government is so discredited and the U.S. will so exhausted that a direct challenge can be contemplated.

Michael Barone had a wonderful story about Irish gangs in Boston and New York in his The New Americans. They fought significant stand-up battles with each other, with rifles and cannon. My wife's favorite was the Second Battle of Bunker Hill.

Obviously we had more than one Civil War.

PD:

I think you mean John Brown.

James Brown, while feeling pretty good, is really only known for beating up his wife and singing. Neither of which is enough to start a civil war.

I hate typos. I just thought I would point it out kindly before someone else did it in an unforgiving manner. BTW -- check out that picture of James Brown! He looks like Nick Nolte after a bad night. I can just see those two singing "Ebony and Ivory"

Davebo: you need to quit reading Christopher Allbritton, especially since he's sitting pretty in the green zone.

Yeeeeooooowch!!!

Thanks Daniel.

I think for a civil war to be significant there must be a level of violence as well as a political aim.

The Bloods and Crips are not involved in a civil war with the LAPD for one sure and one possible reason.

1. The level of violence is not very high.

2. Political ambitions are limited.

Now apply the same criteria to Iraq.

Geez, thanks so much for putting that picture in my head. Now I'll have James Brown and Nick Nolte doing that duet in my head for the rest of the day. Just freakin' lovely....

On the other hand, a recording of same might prove very effective for dispersing Iraqi crowds and hence containing any future sectarian violence.

I think I'm beginning to understand this punditry game: cherry-pick a historical example that's either above or below the casualty rate in Iraw, depending on what best fits your mental narrative, and whether or not it's in a "civil war" falls out immediately from that comparison. Presto, analysis is easy!

I think for a civil war to be significant there must be a level of violence as well as a political aim.

I would agree, but I think the political aim has to be of a certain nature. These days any yookel can strap a bomb to their back and attempt to make a political statement with mass casualties. I am not aware of any civil war in which the aim was not to use armed forces to overthrow the government or contest that government's teritoriality.

Wretchard of the Belmont club is on te same wave length as I am today. See here via Glenn Reynolds:

"http://fallbackbelmont.bl_gspot.com/2006/03/reason-to-believe.html"

So what's the truth? The principle in determining truth should be to apply the factual indicator test. A civil war is a visible event whose indicators include the insubordination of armed units, mass refugee flows, the rise of rival governments, etc. The test is whether those events are being observed. What famous individuals say about a situation is a shortcut for encapsulating a factual assessment; it describes reality as public figures see it but is not the reality itself. . . .

Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco. It was Zarqawi and his cohorts themselves who changed the terms of reference from fighting US forces to sparking a 'civil war'. With any luck, they'll lose that campaign too.

Dean Barnett (at Soxblog) makes a good point. Let's let the MSM have it's way -- let's call it a civil war. Then, identify the sides. On the one side, there's the Iraqis trying to form a national government, largely supported by the population, including most people from each of Iraq's largest ethnic groups, and on the other hand, there's a foreign funded and driven "insurgency," seeking Islamic totalitarianism. The choice to stay until the job is done just gets clearer.

I think Trent's analysis is logically self-consistent.

Following that line of reasoning, after the government is formed and decisions are made how to run the country, the language will shift to something like "why are we assisting in the oppression of the Sunnis?"

Later it will be every crooked Iraqi politician or ethnic violence incident -- the call will go out "why did we lose so many of our youth in order for this to happen?"

It's fascinating that local Iraqi politics have become USA internal politics. I heard that hysterical guy, Murtha Something?, on TV Sunday. His list of gripes sounded like an Iraqi running for office! No water, electricity doesn't run, etc.

The strategy has always been to "hang this war around George Bush's neck" and make him wear it. What seems obvious to me is that the things they're blaming him for are getting more and more trivial. If the Sopranos end poorly this year, you can bet Bushie had something to do with it. He probably had something to do with Ralphie getting whacked.

Since September 10, 2001, about seven Americans a day have (on average) been killed by terrorists, Baathists, and insurgents. I have never seen Winds of Change, nor Mr Telenko, have the slightest problem in describing ourselves as engaged in a war on Terror, Islamism, Islamofascism, etc., nor in supporting the Bush Administration when they speak in this way. Only when the much bloodier conflict going on in Iraq today is called a Civil War do they find a problem with this terminology. Anything, I suppose, to disguise the collapse of Iraq into sectarian strife and our complete inability to make the outcome of the Iraq invasion match anything even slightly resembling the stable, pro-USA, pro-Israel Baghdad regime that Ahmad Chalabi promised to deliver.

Deal with it and stop quibbling.

Perhaps there was a GWOT, of which there was a war to conquer Iraq and now an occupation to institute a civilian government?

I don't mean to quibble, but this whole GWOT/Iraq thing really gets some people confused. If you add the phrase "9-11" they get positively spastic. When I think "Civil War" -- it ain't Iraq. Iraq isn't even close. I mean, it's not in the ballpark. If you call Iraq a civil war, as one poster pointed out, you've destroyed the meaning of the term itself. Gad -- look at some real civil wars and tell me Iraq is one.

When this slander and wave of depression started, I told my wife that it wasn't a civil war. I then changed my mind. I still don't feel that it is a civil war, but I'm now convinced that we will have to redefine the words "civil war" in order to make the anti-Iraqi folks happy. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory will take a little bit of fudging now and then, I guess.

I also think the word "war" itself is overused, hence a lot of the argument. War on poverty, war on hunger -- we've killed the word war, really. The phrase "Civil War" seemed to have survived as having some kind of cohesive meaning, but let's drive the stake through that one as well, I guess. Anything for the party.

Don't foget the War On Drugs.

No one has yet figured out how to get Drugs to sign a surrender agreement so the war goes on.

By the logic that you are using, the US certainly cant be considered at war in iraq, since only 2-3/ US soldiers are KIA/day in Iraq, whereas over in WWII the KIA was 250 US soldiers/day.

Basically if only a slight amount of the civilian violence, that is occurring in Iraq, happened in the US, americans would freak out.
If a proportional amount of Iraqi civilian deaths were occuring in the US, along religious or regional lines, we would probably consider it to be a civil war.

cb

"Since September 10, 2001, about seven Americans a day have (on average) been killed by terrorists, Baathists, and insurgents."

I dont think that is correct.
2967 - 9/11
1823- Iraq, hostile fire
165- Afghanistan, hostie fire

Thats 4955 (60% of which occured on 9-11). Now certainly some Americans have died around the world in other attacks, but its been ~1640 days since 911 which puts us at 3 per day in the main flash points. Im fairly certain another 5000 American deaths do not remain unaccounted for.

For reference 13,283 American's died in the Mexican War between 1846-1848. If you take only the military fatalities, we have suffered less soldiers combat deaths (1988) since 911 than the Union suffered in a single day at Antietam (2100).

If there is one thing we are all lacking in this day and age, it is perspective.

I'll give it to the righties on part of this one, I don't beleive this is a civil war, though I think it teetered on the brink for a few moments.

As I've said before: the Baghdad situation is still very, very bad. If you assume all of this is from insurgency groups, it's difficult to say that the insurgency is in it's last throes, because the violence appears to be rising, not falling.

I keep hearing Iraqi interviews were people say they are afraid to speak out against violence, against pollitical organizations, against strict muslim orthodoxy (for fear of reprisal). This is not a sign of success.

Salon, told a story a few months ago about the famous 'book cafes' in Baghdad that managed to survive Saddam (just barely) but are now closing because they keep getting destroyed by suicide bombers. One of the owners told an 'old wives tale' of an ice cream vendor who was shot by a bearded man yelling 'Mohammed didn't have ice cream in his day!'. It's what passes for a joke these days I guess. The owner didn't know if the story was true, but he said it's accepted as general truth.

Or so I hear. I don't think anybody here has actually been there, and I'm sure there are a lot of success stories as well. Still, until the violence is significantly reduced, and major rebuilding takes place, I will be unconvinced that Iraq is headed in a good direction.

This is not my forum to ask a question, so avoid it if you wish... how long do we stay if the violence continues at this level? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? We can't afford to rebuild forever, where is the cost drawing point?

A great article on how the Iraq War is a small one in a historical context

32)"If a proportional amount of Iraqi civilian deaths were occuring in the US, along religious or regional lines, we would probably consider it to be a civil war."

This is a good point, if 50 people were found killed execution style in NYC, people would really flip out. Imagine Columbine happening on a weekly (or daily basis) and people would really go bats#!t.

Andrew: Either I'm having a hard time understanding what point you are trying to make, or else I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd think such an argument would be compelling.

One can believe that a war is occuring in Iraq without believing that it is a 'civil war'. This is because 'civil war' is a phrase which conveys a meaning above and beyond its component parts. A collapse into sectarian strife, doesn't necessarily imply civil war except in the most general way. Not all strife reaches the level to which 'civil war' refers. Not all violence qualifies as civil war, in the same fashion that not all violence qualifies as war.

The medias own claims here are in my opinion internally inconsistant. Suppose you mean by that there is a civil war going in Iraq only a civil war in the most general terms, that is to say some level of violent political strife within the political boundaries of community. But if this is what you mean, how can you possibly ask questions like, "Is Iraq sliding toward civil war." In this most general sense, Iraq has been in a civil war for years - since before the invasion. Clearly, when people say, "Is Iraq sliding twoard civil war?" or "I believe that what is going on now in Iraq should be characterized as a civil war" they mean quite obviously that there is now a difference in degree in what is going on now that what has gone on before.

And why the rush to describe this conflict as a 'civil war', and yet avoid putting the term into stories coming out today regarding what is going on in Nepal?

But if indeed what they mean is 'things have gotten worse', then they cannot complain when someone points out that far from 'slipping' into a period of greater violence, the violence of this most recent period is measurably LESS than that of Summer 2005 in terms of not only the number of coalition troops killed, but also of the number of Iraqi security forces (both army and police) killed, and even of the number of Iraqi civilians killed. Granted, there has been an uptick in murders of civilians by terrorists compared to recent months, but not compared to the height last summer.

Let's face it, in bringing up the term 'civil war' the people who are using it are not in the least bit unaware that the term properly used, implies a certain degree of violence. In fact, implying that things have gotten worse is the whole point in bringing the term into the conversation.

What has changed is not the circumstances on the ground, but the way those circumstances are covered. Last summer, the fact that thousands of Iraqi civilians were being murdered each month by terrorists was less of a story than the continuing death of US soldiers to IED's and the increasing rates of death among Iraqi police. But now, the fact that US fatalies are on a nearly 2 year downward trendline, and that Iraqi security forces are on a six month downward trend in fatalities the focus - both of the insurgency and the press - has turned to the murdering of Iraqi civilians.

If you wanted to make a real argument that civil war was underway, you'd focus not on the tribal retaliatory murders but on tangible signs of civil war such as the fielding of relatively large bodies of armed troops, or the holding of territory, or the formation of alternative provisional governments providing governmental services and with nominal heads of state and so forth. So, if you wanted to make a case for civil war, you might start by pointing out the recent attack on a police station by a company sized force of insurgents as evidence of a developing civil war.

The problem with that is that the real news here is that this was one of the first such large scale attacks in several months (at least among what got reported). Go back a year or so ago, and such company sized engagements were relatively common, occuring up to several times a week. One of the main things that is different about this story compared to such stories from a year or more ago is, a) the police didn't cooperate with the insurgents, and b) the police fought back. In this case, they lost - and that in itself has become an unusual event as the last half-dozen or so times I can remember something like this happening the insurgents got slaughtered. Likewise, the ability of the insurgency to control or hold territory has been decreasing since November 2003.

Andrew is changing the topic from "civil war" to "war." Its one thing to say that the U.S. is at war with foreign governments (including their last vestiges and loyalists) or organizations like al Qaeda and other jihadists. Its quite another to say that the Iraqis are at civil war with each other.

And its not a quibbling issue of semantics -- a civil war would have a different set of policy responses to evaluate than a sectarian conflict.

"If a proportional amount of Iraqi civilian deaths were occuring in the US, along religious or regional lines, we would probably consider it to be a civil war."

Oh good grief. I know nothing about you, but speaking from experience I'd assume here speaks a Yankee. In the South, you actually get an education regarding the civil war (if sometimes a rather skewed one), and so you'd never make such a statement.

In the US, we've had a real civil war and we'd never claim a second American civil war just because of some domestic unrest. And anyone that did would be an idiot.

If 50 people died a day died in political violence in the US, yeah, people would understably 'freak out'. But something worth 'freaking out' about and a civil war are not the same thing. If 50 people died a day, everyone in the US grabbed a gun and started shooting at thier neighbors, the US military disentigrated into factions, and a someone set up a provisional capital in Peoria and people actually took it seriously, then yes, we'd be in a civil war.

For that matter, if 50 people died in political violence every day for days on end, the most unsettling sign of a civil war in the United States would not be the violence but rather something that we already have. Namely, the most worrying sign of a developing civil war in the United States is that thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans do not believe in the legitimacy of the current government. So lets spend more time worrying about whether the current Iraqi government continues to increase its percieved legitimacy than whether the terrorists succeed in killing school girls. I'm not trivializing the latter, but if the former happens, then the latter will eventually be taken care of.

Granted, it will probably be a long road to peace, but the road is no longer for thier having been an invasion and arguably is a good deal shorter than it was back when Saddam was in charge. Saddam being in charge doesn't qualify as peace and freedom, or even for that matter even as stability, except perhaps for his cronies.

I'll answer you Alch.

First, I don't think it's any kind of war anymore. Not only does the scale not qualify, there will not be any kind of surrender and ceasation of hostilities. So if for those of you who are waiting on some big parade to end this, you haven't been paying attention.

So the real question is: at what level do we support an ally in the region that is experiencing major civil unrest? Whatever the answer to that question, when we get there, the transition period is over.

I think it's reasonable to have 10-20 thousand troops in the region as a rapid reaction force, no matter where they are staged. I also think it is reasonable to have another 10-20 thousand as a strategic force to put pressure on Iran, and I think those guys need to be as forward as possible. That means Iraq. Probably the H1 site.

Now I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but the point is a major one -- there will be no total withdrawal of forces from Iraq. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it. I don't know of any politician that is saying we should withdraw every soldier back to North America to hide somewhere on an air base. Reposition, make them safer, redeploy -- pick your favorite euphanism. But there's no big bang. It just kind of fizzles out.

That's really going to suck for the politicians of both sides who want to make political hay.

Isn't there a glaringly obvious reason why Iraq hasn't plunged into civil war? (Imagine what would happen in Nigeria if a major mosque were bombed.) Because our people are all over the place with guns, and if that doesn't deter some people it certainly deters most.

I don't expect the anti-warriors to admit that occupation is anything but an unmitigated evil for Iraq, but much of their rhetoric assumes that Iraqis want to be left alone. So they can have a civil war? All the talk about letting Iraqis "settle their own affairs" takes on a sinister tone if that's the case.

So which is it? The left has been saying that we're the major cause of violence in Iraq, now they're saying that Iraq wants more.

What really happened was that there was widespread concern that the temporary strife after the Samarra mosque bombing might be the start of widespread Shia vs. Sunni Arab conflict, as opposed to one-sided Sunni Baathist and Al Qaeda massacres of Shia.

That did not happen but MSM editors seized upon the civil war possibility as a replacement Big Lie (a la Joseph Goebbels) for their no-longer credible to anybody lies about the terrorists winning in Iraq, and have been promoting it ever since, though events in Iraq do not in the least support their civil war allegations.

Trent is entirely correct in labeling this as the usual MSM lies.

If what is going on in Iraq is a civil war, there were lots and lots of civil wars in the U.S., most of those involving the Irish gangs of New York and Boston. Barone's delightful book mentioned how one such war was waged by uniformed forces - Boston then had two different police forces, wearing different uniforms, dominated by rival Irish immigrant gangs, who had significant public battles, one of which was called the Second Battle of Bunker Hill because both sides used cannon. And the Irish gang wars here involved far more casualties, and fatalities, than what is going on in Iraq.

A quick mention of an obvious but often-forgotten point: The enemy gets a vote.

Yes, of course circumstances in Iraq stem from chaos, age-old grudges, inter-tribe competition, and a host of other cultural, economic, and historical factors. But this is also one case where a root-cause analysis must include a Conspiracy Theory.

This time, there are indeed powerful men who are meeting secretly. They are asking and answering the question, "How can we use the tools at hand to cause the maximum carnage and destruction in Iraqi society?"

Even though the Western media is ignorant of General Giap's legacy, Al Qaeda in Iraq and its allies are not. Widespread murder, bombings, kidnapping, and property destruction isn't just happening as the "natural" consequence of social/historical forces. These events are planned. They are staged. They are the politics of bloodshed.

AQIZ's agenda is known (if ignored in most media accounts).

• What should we do to make Iraqis lose faith in the infidels' democracy?

• What actions will prompt US polls to show that "most Americans want to bring the troops home now"?

These are the Insurgents' and AQIZ's OODA Loops. Murder some Shia; bomb a mosque; ambush some IP. Watch CNN carefully to see the effect. Recalibrate. Then initiate the next cycle.

This analysis doesn't lead to an automatic "stay the course" or "get out now." It's just a reminder that AQIZ and its media allies have correctly defined the battlespace, while most of the US and European media lack the insight to do so.

Just read the Arms and Influence post A civil war by any other name.

AMac (#43)
> AQIZ's agenda is known (if ignored in most media accounts).

- you are spot on in this. Al Qaeda has been intent on fomenting sectarian civil war in Iraq since at least that leaked letter in early 2004
(http://csmonitor.com/2004/0210/dailyUpdate.html) (this was posted in a former thread, but seems more apt here).

In this context, it appears that the ability of AlQ to manipulate the MSM to serve it's own propagandistic purposes is formidable.

AQIZ's agenda is known (if ignored in most media accounts).

What should we do to make Iraqis lose faith in the infidels' democracy?
What actions will prompt US polls to show that "most Americans want to bring the troops home now"?
These are the Insurgents' and AQIZ's OODA Loops. Murder some Shia; bomb a mosque; ambush some IP. Watch CNN carefully to see the effect. Recalibrate. Then initiate the next cycle.

This analysis doesn't lead to an automatic "stay the course" or "get out now." It's just a reminder that AQIZ and its media allies have correctly defined the battlespace, while most of the US and European media lack the insight to do so.

There is a steady one way flow of news consumers away from the MSM and to alternative media and the jihad brigade aren't nearly as successful peddling their tales there. The MSM of today has given away most of its credibility and this has led inaccurate assumptions all around including amongst our enemies

In this context, it appears that the ability of AlQ to manipulate the MSM to serve it's own propagandistic purposes is formidable.