What denotes a Civil War?

I've been wrestling with this issue for quite some time. While there has been much talk of the pending civil war in Iraq, I was curious as to what parameters are needed to be filled in order to actually attain the status of a truly defined civil war? Does there need to be a certain body count? Must a prominent leader declare war on the other side? What makes a conflict become a civil war? Is Bush an idiot? Why did Cheney shoot his friend? These are simply questions you can answer if you don't feel like answering the big question.

and cheney shot his friend because he isn't a hunter/outdoorsman, he just plays one on tv.

civil war
n.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.

So, I'd say that Iraq definitely qualifies.

To answer your other questions, yes Bush is an idiot and Cheney shot his "friend" accidentally because he was either drunk or not following safe hunting etiquette. The cover up is the bigger problem with the shooting.


edit: fixed typo

The crips and the Bloods used to fight all the time does that mean there was a civil war in cali? I'm still not sure that they are truly in a civil war right now. Not to say that it won't happen but how does the religious leadership asking for peace and calm factor into the equation?

Civil war has begun in Iraq. Hopefully the religious leaders there can put a quick stop to it before it escalates.

Edit: Why don't you define it as a Civil War?

are not truly sanctioned by and government entity, much like the Crips and Bloods. What we are seeing is independent gangs going around killing each other in very localized areas of the country. Frankly I have a pretty high standard as to what denotes a Civil War. That being said I do feel that we are witnessing the beginning of a civil war but i don't feel, unlike what many on this forum believe, that it has been going on for some time. I've mentioned this comparison on other threads but it works here to. Lets say you live in SW DC. If a major bomb goes off in NE DC you are not affected in anyway. In fact there is a good chance that unless you follow the news regularly you won't find out about it until much later. However if you live in San Diego, the 10 o'clock news will issue its tops story as "Chaos in DC!!" while technically true it does point out that much of the city carried on as usual. To me we had been seeing this sort of thing occur in Iraq. Most of the country was "chugging" along with various spots of unrest breaking out in major cities. Granted this analysis could be wrong (I am new to the forum) I think in a few weeks or maybe months it will be rendered obsolete.

They are the 2 largest religious groups. They are not a gang. The following things point to Civil War; all groups have armed themselves in recent weeks; large number of attacks on opposing religious groups or buildings; high death toll. All of this differs from the type of violence that was seen in the past couple of years, such as attacks on US forces or Iraqis cooperating with US forces.

What standard do you have for Civil War and how would that differ from what is going on? What is the point anyway? Either way, *'s objectives are unattainable under current conditions. The US Soldiers are stuck in an increasingly no-win situation.

i feel that a classic civil war would require more structured opposing factions. We don't have that here. We have people from opposing groups, yes, but large quantities of people are not actually engaging in the violence. If one person plants a bomb in a crowd and kills a lot of people we can't instantly assume the worst. But again I must stress that I feel the structure that my standard requires will probably coalesce fairly soon. Mookie Sadr is just itching to grab power and he'll probably be a major figure in the CW.

in hopes of carpetbagging and business opportunity, sabbotage of public utilities/services AND the U.S. military DOESN'T WANT the job!!
70% of our troops want OUT this year.
33% of Iraq vets ask for mental health services!!!
60% of Europe(40,000 polled) say world is less safe now.
AND our fearless leader, Heir Bush (sieg heil), says there is no c.w., assume opposite is true.
HOW DO YOU TELL WHEN BUSH IS LYING? when his lips are moving.

but then, Iraq won't have a civil war until Bushco defines it as one. In other words, never.

"On April 10, 1861, Brig. General Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively.

At 2:30 pm, April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely while firing a salute during the evacuation on April 14..."

http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/sc/sc001.html

What was a critical defining point of our civil war was the formation of two relatively well structured groups opposing each other. At the moment I just don't see it here.

Standing armies facing off against each other, fighting for territory.

But civil wars are defined more broadly than that.

You have a civil war when you have organized groups within a nation that attack each other with the intent of at least one faction of influencing government policy, seizing power altogether or seizing control of a region.

countries are in civil war as well. I think most would agree that our south american cousins while not as stable as us are in pretty decent shape. I know a lot of people that go to Brazil for vacation purposes and they have tons of inter-gang/political fighting

Unless the organized gangs are fighting for political reasons.

Colombia. OTOH, qualifies as a civil war.

All the religious and ethnic factions already field sizeable armed militia bodies, loyal to leaders able to exert discipline and direction over their use of arms. Further, there are tribal and clan structures in place in the society that have real political heft, and in times of crisis and violence function as military bodies. the situation has been for nigh on two years a "low-intensity" civil war, and seems, in the wake of the dynamiting of the shrine, to have crossed over into the dull-blown condition. Things are not going to get calmer, but rather will continue to escalate, for too many have been killed in the spasm, and the social necessities of revenge and retaliation will take over events....

these militia's are small groups of hard core people. They are more gang-like in structure than anything else. (Unless you know of some article that has any numbers on militia sizes)

"Gang-like" is a meaningless phrase, used to merely to encourage a dismissive attitude. They are irregular forces, of course, and all such have a certain looseness and laxness about them differring somewhat from conventional formations, but their leadership at various levels can rely on sizeable bodies of men doing what they are called to do. One of the most important factors in the situation at present is the degre to which Shia militias have transfered themselves to the police forces, particularly in the southern reaches of the country, but also in the capital itself. This allows them to carry out private actions not just with impunity but also with a certain color of authority.

As a matter of curiousity, Sir, is it your belief there is no civil war in Iraq? And if that is your view, on what do you base it?

I would classify it more as a guerrilla war fought by weak factions. As I've said I find an important factor in the definition of a Civil War is strong "central" leadership. For example if Al Zarqawi and Al-Sadr factions began fighting each other in LARGE numbers then we would have a Civil War. What we have now is far to chaotic to really be defined as civil warfare. If you can point out some situations which were classified as a Civil War yet did not have central leadership please let me know and i'll shut up, but if we are going to use terms like Civil War we should make sure that the situation meets the description. Also as I have said I'm not dismissing the idea of a Civil War occurring in the country just that there has as yet no one to take control of the situation.

That your definitions mis-lead you somewhat. For instance, you describe the situation as "a guerrilla war", but all sorts of wars, from national defense to invasion to civil to pure revolution, can be fought as guerrilla wars, for that is simply one pattern among many by which war can be prosecuted. Nor would "Al Zarqawi and Al-Sadr" factions clashing, even in greater proportion than they do already, constitute civil war, as the former faction is a foreign one, not indigenous to the country, and most of its operatives are recruited from other lands than Iraq: they are allied with the Sunni faction in Iraq, but that is not quite the same thing.

It is quite possible for a civil war to be carried on by means of guerrilla actions on all sides of the conflict, and so be conducted without formed battalions in column ever appearing anywhere. Indeed, that seems to be one of the predominant patterns of war in the present day. It is a pattern particularly well suited to pressing civil war, especially in areas where the various factions live cheek by jowl, for it shelters somewhat the combatant forces from harm, and gaurantees a maximum of outrage in the population each faction is based on, which leads to greater fervor in support of and recruitment for the combatant forces.

Further, civil wars can have markedly different characters depending on the purpose of the various combatants. The actions of a faction which seeks to gain or maintain central power will be different than those of a faction that aims at breaking free from a central power. The most basic aim of both Shia and Kurdish factions is breaking free from a central authority, though certainly the Shia factions also desire in some degree to control the central authority. But the aspirations of the populace supporting the militant Shia bodies would probably satisfied at bottom by unhindered control of their own areas. In such a circumstance, it is really not necessary to do anything more than cement control over the area one's backers inhabit, expell minorities regarded with hostility, and stand ready to repel any attempt to alter this condition once it has been secured. That is pretty much what has been occuring in the Shia regions of Iraq for many months now.

First off, it does not matter where the people are coming from simply that they are there committing acts of violence. Secondly I don't believe that I explicitly stated that formal military regiments is needed, rather a form of political leadership and military is needed. Hence why I am not agreeing that this is truly a civil war yet. Look at the war in Chechnya. That in my opinion is a civil war because both sides have a leadership organization. Without it any conflict is simply chaos.

In assessing whether or not a civil war is occuring, it does indeed make a difference where the combatants are coming from: if they are not indigenous to the place, or at the very least under direction of leadership indigenous to the place, it is not a civil war, but something else. The conflicts in early nineteenth century Central America, for instance, involving "fillibusters" such as Mr. Walker, were not civil wars. If the sole combatant forces in Iraq were the Zarqawi faction, what is occuring there would not be a civil war but a species of guerrilla invasion.

Why you continue to insist there is no leadership involved in and directing the militia bodies of Shia Arab, Sunni Arab, and Kurd in Iraq eludes me. It is obvious there is leadership involved, for the scale and duration of the groups' activities, among other things, would be impossible without it. The fact that the social and political patterns of leadership in Iraq are unfamiliar to Westerners, whether journalists or government figures, and so are little reported or commented on, does not mean they are non-existent, only that they are not widely or well understood here. Events in Spain, in 1936 and 1937 particularly, baffled many people not familiar with the place, but were perfectly intelligible to Spaniards.

"Chaos" is another of those slippery and evocative words that often is employed more to set a mood than to accurately describe a circumstance. What is called "chaos" is often simply a dynamic order one does not well understand. The overall situation in Iraq does not seem particularly chaotic to me: the major factions are pretty clearly identified, and their aims and actions broadly apparent. For an individual there on the street, of course, experience of violence will be random and even whimsical, but that is not quite the same thing: even in the most tightly directed battle, that will be the pattern of experience for each participating individual, or for each non-combatant individual caught up by unfortunte proximity in the event.

I agree with your first paragraph and actually I find that to be closer to the reality which is on the ground currently.

You say that the factions are well defined. Well in terms of existing as either "Shiite" or "Sunni" those characterizations have been around for a very long time so yes there are well defined groups of people that fit into those categories. And there are definitely pockets of people in these groups that are carrying on attacks. Yet can you name the people who are leading them? I use the term chaos because I define it as the absence of order. What creates order? Leadership! They at the moment have not coalesced around any strong leaders and that is crucial. Again as I have said though I think it is a matter of when the groups find strong leaders not if they do.

Does not affect their existence and influence within their own society, a foreign one arisen from a different culture and speaking a different language. Like certain astronomical phenomenon, their existance can be readily inferred from the action of other bodies that can be more readily seen which they influence. A complex and puzzling order is not chaos, and that word is not a synonym for something one does not oneself see any readily apparent order in. Chaos is not what exists in Iraq: what exists in Iraq is a civil war with at least four, and probably as many as six or seven readily definable sides, conducting their operations under the aegis of a hostile occupying power, that several of the factions are seeking to turn to their pawn in the conflict they conduct with their local foes.

we are talking about fundamental issues of human nature here, not what exists at the center of a black hole. I'll grant that the beginning of a civil war is always discerned in hindsight, but like I said, you must have some prominent leadership calling the shots, that's still a big factor! Just because we may not understand the culture and thereby understand their logic and reasoning for going to war is irrelevant. Certain behaviors exist in all people and, frankly, killing is a pretty big common denominator. You said that there are probably six to seven sides in this. Counting the shiites, and sunni's (I'm not counting the Kurds cuz they don't really care, as civil war would give them the excuse to secede) who else are you referring too? The various martyrs brigades?

Let me turn the tables here for a minute. What factors did you consider when you concluded that this is a civil war? I may be more agreeable to the notion of civil war if you present me your perspective.

As always, fantastic conversation!

There is a civil war in Iraq, you have folks killing other folks just because they pray to a ddiferent version of Islam (and these are the worst kinds of civil wars) When will the press finally declare one? Five seconds before Bush decides it is time to throw in the towel... for POLITICAL reasons they cannot admit that we have a civil war, (and one that has been ongoing for at LEAST a year now)

Just like most Americans are unable to see the COLD civil war in this country... what will it take? For it to go hot? And even then, when will they finally say such? If people think that modern civil wars mean military formations... yes they do, but quite late in the process actually.