Do you think Russia, China and India are going to sit idly by as internecine tribal war spreads towards their borders?

Since the demise of the USSR and 9/11; the Cold War paradigm of MAD, or 1938’s biggest hit, containment and appeasement (read UN jawboning) no longer apply. We have been in a hot war since 2000, it simply took 9/11 for us to recognize it as such.

For the first time since those scary days in Oct 1962 I fear we are on the threshold of the demise of our society. Not from without, but within as we are in a cold civil war among ourselves.

Yes, it was a cold war while Saddam Hussein was in power - kind of, because he repressed the fight between the Sunnis and the Shia and the many variations thereof. That repression now another reason for the Shia to attack and repress the Sunni - in addition to their religious differences.

It doesn’t now matter why the US went into Iraq; we opened Pandora’s box and now this civil war dominates the conflict. We broke it, now we own it. But it’s a civil war - yeah, it really is.

US policy toward Iraq is now an unconscionable attempt to save face at the expense of our troops, Iraqi civilians and our country’s wealth - and at the expense of doing what we really need to do to secure our homeland. We aren’t fighting them in Iraq so that we don’t fight them here - we ain’t drinking that Kool-Aid anymore.

This Republican vowed when the war started that if the imminent threat turned out to be false - i.e. weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorists plotting against the US - that I would never vote for another Republican candidate for anything as long as George W. Bush was in office. Finally, this past November, it’s clear that most of us aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid anymore.

Whatever real threats face the US, the war in Iraq is not and was not the frontline; and we now need to turn our resources to the real fight and under different leadership.

No question the battle of the label has a purpose. The purpose is crystal clear in some of these last few posts and in the White House’s immediate reaction to NBC’s use of the term. If we don’t call it civil war then maybe we can trick people into believing that this is a straight up fight between the US and terrorists. What does the administration gain for us by winning that rhetorical battle except more of the same? Instead of debating the technical accuracy of the term civil war the honest approach would be to argue against the “given” and assert that we can still win and to lay out how. And Jay, I’m all ears because the current mess is so f–ng depressing but the fervor with which the rhetorical battle is being fought doesn’t give me confidence. How does the US win or lose a fight between Sunnis and Shiites and somebody please tell me who amongst the emerging powers there we want to support?

It’s a given that we can’t win and thus shouldn’t be involved in a civil war.

Thus, if the current unpleasantness can be labeled a “civil war”, we can’t win and must quit.

The facts of the case are not an issue, only whether the label can be imposed, because the given is given. No arguments apply. Civil war=we must quit.

Thus, the Battle of The Label is of huge importance.

That the given isn’t necessarily true is of absolutely no relevance.

Post-GWI, these two groups started to merge …

I urge my brothers and sisters on the left of the aisle, and I mean that truly and in all seriousness, to turn aside the bitterness of division, and unite, and fight in spirit and resolve against the real enemies of our freedoms, and help foster the beginnings of this new democracy and the people of Iraq. After all, isnt that what really matters?

“Persistance is omnipotent.” -Calvin Coolidge

I call that progress. The particular faction that wants to devastatingly attack the US proper is getting its a$$ kicked in Iraq. Maybe the guy you describe is there now and waiting for the knife with his name on the blade.

I have so little trust of the MSM these days.

When I was in Jr. High, now a “middle” school, Historians didn’t think our civil war met their definition, and tried to call it the “War Between the States”. But Lincoln crossed them: he DIDN’T say “Now we are engaged in a great war between the states…” did he?

Since Iraq has no Lincoln (or Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Madison, for that matter), maybe we can recycle the historians’ hubris and call it the “War Between the Sects”. It doesn’t matter whether it’s accurate, since there’s no term for jockeying for position for a future power grab.

But when looking at the way that the mess fails to meet these criteria, I see that Iraq fails to be a civil war, by these standards, because it is even messier than what we have gotten used to thinking of as a civil war: nastier, more out-of-control, and with even fewer clear-cut lines along which a settlement could be sought.

I don’t quite see what anyone gets out of saying, “Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war.” Except for one person: George W. Bush. He can, and does, claim that what is going on is due to the ongoing interference of al-Qaeda, and thus relate this to the famous War on Terror. Maybe this makes him feel better. My personal feeling is that, even if this was initiated by al-Qaeda, it seems likely to me that it has reached (or will shortly reach) a tipping point, beyond which lies, if you don’t want to call it a civil war, then a formless nightmare of struggle and brutality, that is likely to go on even after the last real al-Qaeda member in Iraq has been stabbed and dumped by the side of the road.

The real horror of the situation may be that, by the time the al-Qaeda are gone, no one will even notice. They’ll be too busy not-having a civil war.

BTW, when will people realize that what we’re seeing in Iraq as well as the Middle East is a failure of Islam to live up to its billing as a “religion of peace”? If Islam is so peaceful and efficacious, then why are Muslims murdering Muslims in the most awful manner in Iraq? Blaming President Bush or American “interventionism” is merely a sophisticated way of saying “the devil (Great Satan America) is making them do it”? I ain’t buying such philosphical claptrap.

Look around the world, we see Muslims murdering and beheading Christians in the name of Allah, Muslims murdering Buddhists, Muslims murdering Hindus, Muslims murdering Jews, Muslims murdering pagans, Muslims murdering atheists/seculars and Muslims murdering one another EXPLICITLY IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE KORAN, AND MOHAMMED. Where do we see Jews slaughtering Hindus or Christians murdering Buddhists explicitly (or even circuitously) in the name of Jehovah?

Even during America’s own Civil War you didn’t find Episcopaleans murdering Lutherans in the name of Jehovah (though one can imagine some individuals may have operated in such a manner) but rather men were dying on both sides as a result of their belief in political principles, not religious sectarianism. The Civil War is not an indictment of Christianity though the vast majority of soldiers in the North and South were indeed Christians … each side was fighting for what they thought was the great principle of liberty as well as states rights vs. federalism. Not so in Iraq, there we are seeing pure ISLAMIC SECTARIANISM as the catalyst for this fratricidal violence. So why isn’t Islam the oil upon troubled waters particularly since boths sides are murdering explicitly in the name of their religious ideology.

And for those who say Iraq is better off under Saddam because he could keep the lid on tribalism. What’s with that “logic”? Are we now to assume that Arabs living within the Islamic hegemony can only be kept “peaceful” under tyrants and mullah thugs? So where is this “religion of peace” which suppose to transcend not only race but also tribal fealty to bring an everlasting peace in a world governed by Allah’s law? I ain’t seein’ it. Where’s the outrage from the Islamic world over the fratricidal insanity which is happening before their very eyes? Oh, that’s right, it’s Great Satan America’s fault. Excuse me for wondering.

It could still go either way, but Iran / Syria / al Queda / the militias certainly have their own agendas.

Commonly a civil war is characterized by the armies of two (or more) established political governing bodies competing for control of the same area. Please identify the multiple recognized political bodies in Iraq. Please identify the conflict by armies. What I see is an insurgency, where small loosely affiliated militias take violent action against either government forces, government supporters or other small loosely affiliated militias. Actually, it is at least three insurgencies happening simultaneously (Sunni hard-liners supported by Syria, Shi’ia militia supported by Iran and Jihadi mujahedeen supported by Al Qeda and possibly others). A fourth wild-card are the criminal element who are often indistinguisable from insurgents in their action but tend to work for whomever has the $$$.

I don’t think I have my head in the sand. I recognize that the current level of violence is a problem, a significant and challenging problem, and it is very high, but using the term “civil war” to describe it does several counter productive things: it conveys more legitimacy upon the insurgent elements than they deserve; it incorrectly conveys an idea of unity among various elements that does not necessarilly exist; it imprecisely diagnoses the problem, possibly leading to bad choices in dealing with the poblems faced; and it falsely creates an impression of greater and more widespread violence than exists.