Dude, where's my civil war?

[geoffrey]

Civil war in Iraq is raging.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle353501.ece

Because the news tells ya it is?

You've got to do better than that. There is no evidence of the required standards of a civil war yet.

Which organized faction is trying to form a parallel government?

This isn't a civil war, but more modelled after a old Southern coon shoot... everyone gets there guns and shoots at the pests. Afterwards, they have a big party.

Iraqi's with guns getting ready for coon shoot: Here

American's with guns getting ready for coon shoot: Here

Seriously though, this is more of just random acts of violence against the west, rather than a strategic overthrow of the ruling power. The French resistence wasn't a civil war, it was an insurgency.

That's a more accurate comparision.

Stop jumping on bandwagons.

[newbie]

Open your eyes folks.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/03/22/d60322020325.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...306civilwar.htm

It's here.

[geoffrey]

Again, the random uncrediable news sources tell you newbie, you should believe it.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but I also don't use second rate news paper articles to back a point.

[GostHacked]

Gosthacked,

It find it amusing that you think its laughable that Iraqi's need US help to operate their military. I'm with you, it is definitely not a good sign.

But then, what does it means for a first world G8 country like Canada to also need the US help to operate our military. We'd be stuck in Canada without their airlift, and we use their helicopters over there (we don't have gunship helicopters either).

We do not have a hug military industrial complex running the show. Out military has been downgraded since the 80's. And if you think the US Military is able to deploy 150,000 troops to the Iraq border without civilan commercial aircraft you need to relook at that. Both US and Canadian troops were flown to Afghanistan in some commercial aircraft.

The reason was that the Canadian Goverment wanted to creat a small well armed totaly mobile/deployable peace keeping unit. Mobility and readyness was the key issues for that decision. Also out Military budget is small in comparison to the US's , even if you look at it with the difference in population/defence spending ratio. Those numbers will knock you on your ass.

And being a G8 country means we must have a large self sufficient army? I guess I forgot to read that fine print.

[GostHacked]

Again, the random uncrediable news sources tell you newbie, you should believe it.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but I also don't use second rate news paper articles to back a point.

When MSM is not giving the whole truth, or being left or right, you need to get to other sources. If all you do is rely on CNN NYTIMES CBC ect ect, you are not getting the whole picture.The only difference is that the MSM uses nice fluffy words to confuse people and hide the facts. Like politicians when they speak.

Reporter askes a question.

Politician beats around the bush with words that make no sense and really does not say what is what.

This does not drive you nuts? Makes me quite batty.

[BubberMiley]

The MSM lost all credibility on this story a long time ago so every media report must be taken with a grain of salt. I guess, unless you're hanging in downtown Fallulah, you really don't know whether the violence has exceeded Geoffrey's arbitrary line between insurgency and civil war.

[Black Dog]

Because the news tells ya it is?

You've got to do better than that. There is no evidence of the required standards of a civil war yet.

Which organized faction is trying to form a parallel government?

This isn't a civil war, but more modelled after a old Southern coon shoot... everyone gets there guns and shoots at the pests. Afterwards, they have a big party.

Iraqi's with guns getting ready for coon shoot: Here

American's with guns getting ready for coon shoot: Here

Seriously though, this is more of just random acts of violence against the west, rather than a strategic overthrow of the ruling power. The French resistence wasn't a civil war, it was an insurgency.

That's a more accurate comparision.

Stop jumping on bandwagons.

Okay. It's not a civil war. It's total fucking chaos.

Does that make you feel better?

I have to wonder, too, about people who whine that the MSM is not reporting the whole story. Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, since the entire MSM is reporting pretty much the same thing- that Iraq is a mess, with no one in charge or control- that that is the whole story? The idea that there's tons of "good news" out of Iraq that's being neglected is a little hard to take in the face of the daily discoveries of fresh mass graves, of teachers being beheaded in front of their students etc etc. This shit doesn't happen in a country where everything is hunky dory except for a few bad apples the media insists on reporting on.

[geoffrey]

Total chaos is far more accurate.

I'm not supporting the US in this case, I'm just saying its not a civil war so I'd really like people to stop sensationalising the issue in order to gain a few more supporters for their cause.

Plus we have an obligation and a concern for our own security to step in to total chaos, a civil war is merely a domestic squabble.

[Black Dog]

Total chaos is far more accurate.

I'm not supporting the US in this case, I'm just saying its not a civil war so I'd really like people to stop sensationalising the issue in order to gain a few more supporters for their cause.

Plus we have an obligation and a concern for our own security to step in to total chaos, a civil war is merely a domestic squabble.

I dunno. "Civil War" certainly sounds better for the Bush apologists than chaos: the former at least implies some level of organization or control and thus some prospect for resolution. Chaos? Not so much.

[geoffrey]

Total chaos is far more accurate.

I'm not supporting the US in this case, I'm just saying its not a civil war so I'd really like people to stop sensationalising the issue in order to gain a few more supporters for their cause.

Plus we have an obligation and a concern for our own security to step in to total chaos, a civil war is merely a domestic squabble.

I dunno. "Civil War" certainly sounds better for the Bush apologists than chaos: the former at least implies some level of organization or control and thus some prospect for resolution. Chaos? Not so much.

I'm not a Bush apologist so I'll use chaos...

[newbie]

Dubya in his own words on the topic:

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."—Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006

[Montgomery Burns]

My Election Analyst:

81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25

What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?

No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.

Leftist talking point: Vietnam!

But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?

215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)

Quagmire!

Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?

70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30

57% less splodeydopes in the last 2 months.

Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians.

527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).

Civil War!

My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn’t. My point isn’t that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn’t. My point here isn’t even to argue that we’re winning. I’m at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there.

I disagree with the last half of this paragraph, but he is entitled to his opinion.

My only point is that, at the very least, people who complain that good news coming out of Iraq gets shuttered by the press aren’t crazy.

Are you suggesting that the liberal MSM is biased?

Where is my civil war?

[KrustyKidd]

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."—Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006

Other methods are propaganda, fear mongering, religion, cultural/nationalistic identity, racial intolerance and money.

[GostHacked]

Here is your civil war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4891008.stm

[geoffrey]

Still doesn't meet any criteria of a civil war.

Why does everyone want it to be a civil war? I don't understand the obsession? Civil war, religious war, what difference does it make? Why must the definitions be so contorted.

[KrustyKidd]

Why does everyone want it to be a civil war?

I think the obcession is that in a civil war, there would be clear cut sides. And with clear cut sides, they have clear cut objectives. And, one of those objectives would be to be anti USA. Ommiting of course the fact they would more than likely be anti everything to do with the west, any religion other than Islam and so on and forth. A very bad group for anybody to deal with.

If it is chaos then there is still factions to deal with that can hold power in their terrirtory or whatever as well as an opportunity for order to come out of it. With a government backed by the USA.

Hence, civil war is the anti US stance every time.

[Black Dog]

Yes, Virginia: there is a civil war.

Today in civil war

When David "Axis of Evil" Frum admits the game is up, is there anyone left who will claim this war was a success? Anyone?

Hands up, everybody who believes that the "hundreds" of troops that the Pentagon plans to move from the rest of Iraq into Baghdad will suffice to secure the capital against the sectarian militias now waging war upon the civilian populations of the city? Anybody? No, I didn't think so.

To take back the capital from the militias that now terrorize it will take thousands, not hundreds, of American plus tens of thousands of Iraqis. No sector in Iraq can spare the loss of so many forces (our current troubles in Anbar date back to the decision in 2004 to shift troops from Anbar to the siege of Fallujah - when they returned, they discovered that every pro-US informant and ally in the province had been murdered, usually horribly and publicly). So a real plan for success in Baghdad will have to be built upon additional troops from out of area, potentially raising US troop levels back up to the 150,000 or so of late 2005.

Manifestly, neither the administration nor the Congress will contemplate such a move. Which means, most likely, continuing violence in Iraq and a continuing rise in the power of the militias, especially the Iranian-backed Shiite militias: the Hezbollah of Iraq.