Technically, from what I have heard, it requires an effort to overthrow the existing government. But to the average person on the streets of Sadr, I doubt this matters much.
So by one standard, it would seem that the day Bush referred to "insurgents", a state of civil war existed. I assume that they [Bush admin] are playing the sabotage and harassment angle in their interpretation of events.An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land.
Well, at least the insurgency has undermined the government. For all intents and purposes, Iraq is embroiled in civil war and has been for about 2-3 years. Several experts, e.g. Peter Galbraith, already use the term civil war. The government has little or no authority in many territories, particularly in the Suni areas, and in many Shii areas, the militia are in control. The infrastructure is largely non-functional, and the government only exists because an occupying foreign army (US) is supporting it.Technically, from what I have heard, it requires an effort to overthrow the existing government. But to the average person on the streets of Sadr, I doubt this matters much.
I think differing neighborhoods shelling one another because they are of a different religious sect, would be a good gaugeHow does one tell when there's a civil war on? Does it take uniformed armies fighting on battlegrounds, death rates exceeding some number, a group of "experts" deciding to call it that,...what?
I suggest they hang Bush along side him, that would please most Iraqi's.Can you imagine what will go down, when they hang Sadam.. I dread to think..
As long as Bush is the face of the US, anything we attempt to do to help solve the problem will meet with strong opposition. It seems that Bush is the poster child for the phrase "ugly American."The political block loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to withdraw from the Iraqi government if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meets with President Bush next week in Jordan. The announcement comes on the heals of mass explosions that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite stronghold.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15850729/page/5/MR. RUSSERT: You keep using the words “sectarian violence.” Is it a civil war, in all honesty?
REP. SKELTON: You know, it depends on what you call a civil war.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, what do you think?
REP. SKELTON: Scholars will say no. I will say yes, because the violence is, is so heavy. In true civil wars, Tim, there’s a political goal. There is a way to stop it and shake hands and put an end to it. The sectarian violence, the only purpose is to kill each other. The Sunnis are killing the Shiites, the Shiites killing the Sunnis, and among themselves. But insofar as peace and decorum is concerned, it’s a civil war in, in my book.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/civilwar_11-28.html [Broken]...DONALD KAGAN: Well, the best historical example that jumps into my mind is that the American Civil War, which I don't remember anybody calling it that during the time. In the South, they referred to it as the War Between the States, in order to suggest that they were within their rights in breaking away from the other states. And up here in Connecticut, we referred to it as the Rebellion of 1861.
And it's that sort of thing that has characterized this kind of issue throughout history, I think.[continued]
Just as a matter of interest it is expressly forbidden to burn the enemy in combat in the Koran.The Mahdi Army militiamen, armed with machines guns and rocket-propelled grenades, swept through Hurriyah neighborhood near an Iraqi army post, burning four mosques and several homes, and attacking worshippers as they left Friday services, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein. Gunmen loyal to the radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had begun to take over the mixed neighborhood this summer and a majority of its Sunni residents had fled.
Somebody else's suffering and death is always a small price to pay for that good feeling of confirming your own correctness.anttech said::rofl: :rofl: Funny in a dark kinda wayMaybe the sectarian conflict in Iraq, of which the insurgency is part, is simply a matter of "a difference of opinion" and the guns and bombs are simply used "to emphasize" their points.
I wasnt laughing at my correctness, I was laughing at the "monty python" like wit of Astronuc. One can understand many a thing through satireSomebody else's suffering and death is always a small price to pay for that good feeling of confirming your own correctness.
Following is the text of a Nov. 8 memorandum prepared for cabinet-level officials by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and his aides on the National Security Council. The five-page document, classified secret, was read and transcribed by The New York Times.
I wonder if Iraqis divide along sectarian lines outside of Iraq. I think there is still hope that someone will come along and resolve the conflict among the different groups.Morning Edition, December 1, 2006 · It might sound like an unlikely hangout for Iraqi expatriates, but the World Donut cafe in Amman, Jordan, attracts Iraqi doctors, teachers, and intellectuals. Renee Montagne speaks with two exiles from Iraq about their experiences fleeing from home.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/reports/HealthcareUnderOccupationDahrJamail.htm [Broken]All Things Considered, December 1, 2006 · Iraq's Health Ministry is controlled by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's movement, under an agreement struck by ruling parties, and sectarian influence has impeded healthcare, according to Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist who's been covering Iraq's healthcare system for Inter Press Service, a nonprofit news organization focusing on developing countries.
Jamail says that in his interviews with doctors at 13 hospitals in and around Baghdad in 2004 and 2005, he discovered a highly politicized healthcare system in Iraq, as well as other challenges facing the country's ailing hospitals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700494.htmlFormer secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the United States is losing what he described as a "civil war" in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation. Instead, he called for a new strategy that would relinquish responsibility for Iraqi security to the government in Baghdad sooner rather than later, with a U.S. drawdown to begin by the middle of next year.
Powell's comments broke his long public silence on the issue and placed him at odds with the administration. President Bush is considering options for a new military strategy -- among them a "surge" of 15,000 to 30,000 troops added to the current 140,000 in Iraq, to secure Baghdad and to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have proposed; or a redirection of the U.S. military away from the insurgency to focus mainly on hunting al-Qaeda terrorists, as the nation's top military leaders proposed last week in a meeting with the president.
But Bush has rejected the dire conclusions of the Iraq Study Group and its recommendations to set parameters for a phased withdrawal to begin next year, and he has insisted that the violence in Iraq is not a civil war.
"I agree with the assessment of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton," Powell said, referring to the study group's leaders, former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D). The situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating, and we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."
I heard similar news on other channels.WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 — A Pentagon assessment of security conditions in Iraq concluded Monday that attacks against American and Iraqi targets had surged this summer and autumn to their highest level, and called violence by Shiite militants the most significant threat in Baghdad.
The report, which covers the period from early August to early November, found an average of almost 960 attacks against Americans and Iraqis every week, the highest level recorded since the Pentagon began issuing the quarterly reports in 2005, with the biggest surge in attacks against American-led forces. That was an increase of 22 percent from the level for early May to early August, the report said.
While most attacks were directed at American forces, most deaths and injuries were suffered by the Iraqi military and civilians.
The report is the most comprehensive public assessment of the American-led operation to secure Baghdad, which began in early August. About 17,000 American combat troops are currently involved in the beefed-up security operation.
According to the Pentagon assessment, the operation initially had some success in reducing killings as militants concentrated on eluding capture and hiding their weapons. But sectarian death squads soon adapted, resuming their killings in regions of the capital that were not initially targets of the overstretched American and Iraqi troops.
Shiite militias, the Pentagon report said, also received help from allies among the Iraqi police. “Shia death squads leveraged support from some elements of the Iraqi Police Service and the National Police who facilitated freedom of movement and provided advance warning of upcoming operations,” the report said.
. . . .