Find » Opinion/Editorial » Iraq's Conflict Severely Lacks All ...

Iraq's Conflict Severely Lacks All Aspects of a Civil War

By Chadd De Las Casas, published Jun 25, 2007
Published Content: 265  Total Views: 170,928  Favorited By: 29 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 4.6 of 5
The idea of a civil war is nothing new to the world's political theater - indeed the constant threat of factions inside a nation or political spectrum vying for dominance of a sovereign territory has always been one that loomed over the minds of national leaders. Perhaps more so than any other nation or government in the world's history, the Roman Empire was plagued by civil wars and strife, so much so that the topic became the leading subject of poetry, plays, and works of art. In fact, citizens were often confused when the generation, decade, or sometimes even year's civil war had not come, it was like bracing for a punch that never truly came.

Most nations have endured a form of revolution or civil war in the past - from Russia to Britain to the United States, and they have always obeyed the same principle rules of definition that appear lost in the media today. In the 19th Century, the United States saw its Union faction pit against the secessionist Confederate faction, who hoped to carve their own country out of the lower states of America, which ended in a definitive American victory in 1865 with the unconditional surrender of the Confederate States of America.

With a nation with a relatively recent first hand experience at a civil war, it seems astounding that its very politicians are incorrectly using the phrase wherever a conflict or violence erupts around the world, and unfortunately it usually carries with it a notion that the Bush Administration has done something wrong. Case in point, and the most publicized example, is the conflict in Iraq, referred to by Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Harry Reid as a "civil war" in which American forces are caught up - something over 67% of Iraqis disagree with.

This false idea that Iraq is currently in a state of civil war is based on the flawed assumption that, because two titled sides in a country are killing each other, there is a form of civil war wracking the country. This of course could not be further from the truth - any more than stating that California is plagued with a "low grade civil war" because of street violence between gang members of the Crips and Bloods factions.

Comments
Comments 1 - 6 of 6
 
 
Well it's nice to see CAbruiser ruined his own argument before I even got there. Awesome.

Posted on 06/26/2007 at 12:06:00 AM

 
Why yes, I'm saying that, if George Will classifies a foreign militant group (Al Qaeda) attempting to incite violence between sects of a religion (Note: It's got nothing to do with ethnicity, perhaps being a little better informed of the source of violence in Iraq would help you understand the issue a tad better), who are now being fought off by joint efforts of locals, the national militia and the US Military (Including such former hostiles as the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade, the Anbar Salvation Council, etc) as "civil war" then he's wrong. Shrill subjectivity isn't partisan you realize?

Posted on 06/26/2007 at 12:06:00 AM

 
this article has cited no source that claims the threat if civil war is a myth other than his opinion. even the most conservative pundits would concede this point. it is laughable to compare the random violence of Va. Tech to the organized systematic murder of thousands based on their enthicity.

Posted on 06/25/2007 at 11:06:00 PM

 
so, are saying that even George Will is wrong, or is he also part of the left wing media conspiracy. its pretty much common knowledge, from the Joint Chiefs to the high command of the Pentagon, to George Will that Iraq is on the brink of civil war. the shia backed by Iran and the Sunni backed by Saudi Arabia. to deny this and try to spread the myth that the insurgency in Iraq is random violence is an out and out lie.

Posted on 06/25/2007 at 11:06:00 PM

 
Why would it be "bordering on irresponsible", because objective criteria are set by which the judgement of a civil war existing are used, and follow a logical process of elimination, ruling out secterian violence as "civil war", and not replacing it with the shrill subjectivity of today's completely delusional media?

Posted on 06/25/2007 at 6:06:00 PM

 
wow. probably one of the most misinformed articles on the topic i have ever read. bordering on irresponsible.

Posted on 06/25/2007 at 2:06:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Comments 1 - 6 of 6
 
Advertisment