People keep throwing the term, civil war, around while hiding behind a veil of ambiguity about it.

So, contrast and compare civil war with ethnic conflict. Also, if you think it's appropriate, compare and contrast civil war with insurgency.

If you are one of those whose interest is chiefly in seeing America fail in Iraq, don't bother.

If you're looking for a discrete, nicely tied up definition, you won't find one. There is no nice, neat formula for deciding what is in & what isn't. Frequently wars are more than one thing. Some examples:

 

American War of Independence: This was an insurgency in parts, a classical 'war' in others, a civil war in others, even an invasion in parts (the attack on Quebec?). Remember that the 'tories' who fought for the crown were loyal American subjects of the Crown. It was not one, simple struggle. It all depends on which bit you look at.

 

Ireland 1919-1923: Two wars. One, a war by the IRB/Sinn Fein against the British government. However, many of those officials were born & bred Irishmen, some Catholic. No set piece battles, but an insurgency by a group that never numbered more than a few thousand. The model for Mao a generation on. A war of independence AND a civil war? perhaps. Round two, a civil war within the Republic between the State & the 'Republicans'. Mostly insurgency, some set piece battles, two distinct factions. Neither war cost as many lives as Iraqis were killed last month.

 

Vietnam 1946-1975: What to call this? Many hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese fought with the French againt the Viet Minh. Was this a civil war, a war of independence, a French invasion of an independent nation (declared Aug 1945)? Then there is what the Vietnamese call 'the American War'. The war in the RVN was undoubtedly a civil war. the DRV invaded parts of Laos & Cambodia, as did the US & RVN at times. Did the DRV invade the RVN? Did  it simply support patriots against an illegitimately constitured regime? If the RVN was illegitimate, can it legitimatetly invite an outside nation to wage war on territory it claims? If not, the US intervention is also an invasion. As you can see, what you call this is even trickier.

 

Ulster 1969-1990s: Not a civil war. Why not? The British Army, British Govt & Protestant militias on one side (until the 90s, anyway), the IRA, PIRA & INLA on the other. Why no civil war? probably the intensity. About 3000 dead over 25 years.

 

Lebanon: 1975-2000(?): Now here's an unholy mess  - multiple militias, shifting alliances, shifting territories, variable intensity, 2 major outside invasions, foreign intervention, tens of thousands dead, major infrastructure in ruins.

 

So, what does this tell us?

 

First, there is no simple definition of 'Civil War'. They don't have to be a toe to toe, one on one slugfest. They can be a lower level fight between multiple factions. In Iraq there seem to be a number of factions battling. There are at least two anti-US groups (very loosely, AQ-aligned & ex-Baathist aligned). Yet, as Sunnis, they are also attacking Shiites. On the Shia side there is Al Sadr's group & newer groups within or close to the government. On top of this are the formal US & Iraqi forces. Side one seems determined to make the nation ungovernable, force out the US & topple the govt. Chaos is its friend. Group two is obviously settling scores, but is also battling group One. Messy.

 

Second, there are ample grounds to call Iraq a 'Civil War' if you wish. The level of violence is high enough. There are plenty of battling factions. Yes, I know it is mainly in the centre, but no one says a war has to be everywhere. It is true that parts of the nation are relatively quiet (for now), but the capital & an area containing about 40-50% of the population is very definately not.

 

So, is there a civil war in Iraq? Yes. Is the entire nation embroiled in a civil war? no. At the moment the intensity of the fighting is on the upswing, but it can also be brought down before the country clooapses completely. This is not a simple 'either or' question. Trying to make it one is about politics, not despcription.

 

Two parting points: For the record (again) I was in favour of removing Saddam. I assumed the Bush Administration had thought out the postwar reconstruction. I was wrong. I believe that a positive outcome

I'm probably one of the earliest whom called this a civil war.  I'm mistaken.  "Free-for-all" would come much closer.  I'm no longer convinced that real control is exercised on gunmen/militias by any political authority-party or governmental.  There are now too many rogue actors who've been empowered by the process.

 

As such, it more closely appears like open anarchy to me.

It is primarily Shia vs Sunni, it was a civil war months ago(years ago). This classification of what is a civil war and what isn't is naturally a political issue now as opposed to reality. About 2million Iraqis have fled mostly to neighbouring countries, they voted with their feet opting for authoritarian regimes with peace instead of the sham government in Iraq. Simple definition of civil war, when 2 or more parties engage in armed conflict bringing national disorder-if u think Iraq isn't a civil war I welcome u to take a 2 week vacation there-if u cannot relax and unwind and are looking over ur shoulder u have disorder. The insurgency is not as substantial as the home grown militias and revenge squads. Those claiming insurgencies are again merely deflecting the issue that Shias and Sunnis don't like each other and it is a civil war not Al Quaida. Its not an anarchy, there are 2 distinct sides fighting for a distinct goal. Control of Iraq.

" Its not an anarchy, there are 2 distinct sides fighting for a distinct goal."

Naturally it isn't as clear cut as Germany vs UK in WW2, but this is essentially a Shia Sunni divide with various faction taking their own revenge-on the Shia side its Sadr & Hakim & Sistani is I guess retired. On the Sunni side I read some reports its some ex-Saddam government officials--the line are drawn in the sand-obviously they are not laser etched. Its definitely not like Escape from LA where dozens of gangs rule little turfs. There is a book on "Reurgence of Shias" you ought to read it--search that on Amazon, some Middle eastern author-excellent book to give u perspective on Shia Iraq.

   There can be a clear definition of a civil war.  Small & Singer have tried to codify wars since 1815:  Melvin Small, and David J. Singer, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816-1980, Beverly Hills, CA:  Sage Publications, 1982 there is this definition:

 

"The COW (Correleates of War) definition of civil wars is based on four characteristics.  It requries that there is oraganized military action and that at least a 1,000 battle deaths resulted in a given year.  In order to distniguish wars from genocide, massacres, and pogroms there has to be effective resistance, at least 5 percent of the deaths have been inflicted by the weaker party.  A further requirement is that the national government at the time was actively involved."

 

 

This definition thus negates "gang war" in the US as the gangs cannot inflict 5 percent of the combat deaths on American police forces.  It would also eliminate Ulster, as there were never 1,000 battle deaths in a given year in Northern Ireland.

 

This also means that the Iraq war is a war of transitions, it was not a civil war in 2003 or 2004, as the casualty rates were too low, it was "merely" an insurgency.  However starting in 2005, when Iraqi police and military began taking up more military action, their battle deaths increased.  According to Reutuers, Iraqi domestic military forces have had 4,500 battle deaths since Jan. 2005. Now the question becomes, how many insurgents have been killed since Jan. 2005?  According to Brookings 43,000 insurgents have been killed or detained in Iraq since 01/05. Even if that number is too low and there have been 43,000 total insurgents killed during that time, the level of violence in Iraq meets Small & Singer's definition of a civil war.    Another number shows 55,000 insurgents killed since the begining of the war, and that number could also be used and Iraq would still fall into the "civil war" category as it would still meet the 5% threshold.

 

 

So yes based on one definition at least, Iraq 2005-2006 qualifies as a civil war, it is still relatively low level, and many civilians are targeted, but there is still effective resistance.

 

   Ah the joys of semantics! The proper term for the sad and sorry state of Iraqi affairs is "intercommunal violence". "Civil war" conjures images of blue, grey and Pickets Charge. Not in the Arab world. The Arab polity is atomized historically. Thats why Muhammad came up  with the concept of Ummah. To create unity where there was none. Beneath the veneer of Ummah atomization remains. It is not Sunni-Shiite exclusively. Look for Badr to start mixing it up with the Mahdi Army, like they did last month in Amarah. Nah, this is atavism 101. My blood against your blood, my sect against your sect, my race against your race."Civil war" does not begin to cover the type of violence that exists and will mushroom (no pun intended) following our inevitable withdrawl. There will be no armies or surender or treaty. This is kill your enemy till he is dead. All dead. As the Texcoco chief advised Hernan Cortes regarding fighting the Mexica, "kill the young and strong so they may never raise  a spear against you, kill the old and wise so they may never give good advice". Sould be fun to watch from 6,000 miles away.

BTW, S-2, you got that e-mail account up and running yet?

Cato

Hey Folks,

 

     civil war is where two or more organized groups with military force fight over a united (previously) country.

     insurgency is where one force attempts to shed the control of a occupying power

     coup is where military force by a countries military ousts the rulers of the country

     uprising is where the populous rises up and overthrows the ruling government of a country

     organized crime is where they try to provide illegal or outlawed services and may enegage in limited resistence to the governing rulers of a country

     resistence is where a force applies insurgency style techniques to influence rulers of a country

     conventional war is war between two or more countries or groups of countries

     cold war is a battle between two or more countries where they try to use  unconventional battle to overthrow each other

     unconventional war is the use of covert forces to cause the fall by indirect means of another group or country

     terrorism is unconventional warfare

 

Sincerely,

 

Keith

Cato, I sent something to you about 10:00AM PST.  God, I'm hoping that you got it and can send back.  But I'm guessing "no".   A friend's kid sent me a file last night w/attachment so I'm thinking I'm o.k., but now I don't know.  Doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

 

   S-2,

Copy 5x5. Will respond via your e-mail address when I'm more...sober?

Adieu,

Cato