Is our government using loopholes in the term "civil war" in order to say that it's not a civil war?

Question

Oooh...it has to be 2 factions fighting against each other to gain political control in order to be considered a civil war...
Gimme a break! Tony Snow, the presidential BS justifier (a.k.a. the "press secretary") and others (including some in the UN such as Kofi Annan) are just in denial.
So what if there are 3 main factions fighting for control (Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds)? It's STILL a civil war! As a matter of fact, it's not like all 3 groups get along within each other. There are more like 16 factions according to recent reports. If this is not a civil war, then it sure as hell is A LOT worse!!!
If this is not a civil war, I don't want to see what one looks like.
I believe our government needs to face facts that their foreign policy fiascos caused a huge civil war, which is destabilizing the entire world (including our nation to some extent).

dubbbed, according to the official definition, it IS a civil war. Shouldn't the government admit that they unintentially led Iraq into a civil war? Admitting this would take humility though, and that is something our administration just doesn't have.

Answer 1

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criteria is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

Answer 2

A civil war, however, is far different from rampant sectarian violence. What we see in Iraq, as tragic as it is, is little more than factionized tit for tat killing with little constructed objective and no signs of a planned government or seperatist state, these are two imperative aspects to define something as a civil war.

While it is indeed violence, it cannot be defined as a civil war, because a civil war implies that there is either a seceeding faction, or a faction vieing for dominance as the central government against the current government. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Tawid and Jihad, the Mahdi Army, etc. etc. do not show signs of attempted government control but escalations of violence between sides that culminates to little more than vengeance killing.

Civil Wars are not two sides killing each other, it's two sides of a normally unified nation attempting to conflict with one another to achieve a certain objective, usually secession or domination of government. That has not begun yet. As it chaos, not secession, not civil conflict, so no, it is not a civil war.

Answer 3

You're a really smart guy! I salute you for remembering how the politicians wanted to change the people's mind by slipping in the phrase "civil war". I have not forgotten yet that we invaded Iraq. I have not forgotten that we were fighting terrorism and in search for Bin Ladin. I'm sure you know that our politicians really think the people of America are peasants. I just can't imagine the height of arrogance and ignorance these people have for them to think that we're bunch of ignorants who can be easily mesmerized by their power. You're exactly right. It's not the Iraqi's civil war. It's the US/Iraq/terrorism war. We should never ever forget this.

Answer 4

Yes I agree it's a civil war,Iraqis are saying it has been for some time and the slaughter is getting worse and more brutal .

Answer 5

That is interesting commentary. You should post it on a Bush hating message board. Did you have a question?

Answer 6

and you propose what...we leave this country and fight jihad here....
face WHAT facts? JIHAD and al qaeda were not american creations and were fighting us long before saddam.