According to that, most gang wars in the U.S. qualify as Civil Wars. They just need some more MSM coverage.

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
Civil War

Civil war exists when two or more opposing parties within a country resort to arms to settle a conflict or when a substantial portion of the population takes up arms against the legitimate government of a country. Within international law distinctions are drawn between minor conflicts like riots, where order is restored promptly, and full-scale insurrections finding opposing parties in political as well as military control over different areas. When an internal conflict reaches sufficient proportions that the interests of other countries are affected, outside states may recognize a state of insurgency. A recognition of insurgency, whether formal or de facto, indicates that the recognizing state regards the insurgents as proper contestants for legitimate power. Although the precise status of insurgents under international law is not well-defined, recognized insurgents traditionally gain the protection afforded soldiers under international rules of law pertaining to war. A state may also decide to recognize the contending group as a belligerent, a status that invokes more well-defined rights and responsibilities. Once recognized as a belligerent party, that party obtains the rights of a belligerent party in a public war, or war between opposing states. The belligerents stand on a par with the parent state in the conduct and settlement of the conflict. In addition, states recognizing the insurgents as belligerents must assume the duties of neutrality toward the conflict. See also U.S. Civil War; war.

Thomas Gale legal encyclopedia. Bold mine.

Which should be like every three or four lines. Spruiell writes: Let’s cut right to what this “civil war” fanfare in the media is really all about: It has nothing to do with the ongoing violence in Iraq, and everything……

Bill Roggio, milblogger and iraq correspondent listed last February the following indicators that would confirm that a civil war is in progress:

• The Shiite United Iraqi Alliance no longer seeks to form a unity government and marginalize the Shiite political blocks.

• Sunni political parties withdraw from the political process.

• Kurds make hard push for independence/full autonomy.

• Grand Ayatollah Sistani ceases calls for calm, no longer takes a lead role in brokering peace.

• Muqtada al-Sadr becomes a leading voice in Shiite politics.

• Major political figures – Shiite and Sunni – openly call for retaliation.

• The Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and Muslim Scholars Association openly call for the formation of Sunni militias.

• Interior Ministry ceases any investigations into torture and death squads, including the case against recently uncovered problems with the Highway Patrol.

• Defense Minister Dulaimi (a Sunni) is asked to step down from his post.

• Iraqi Security Forces begins severing ties with the Coalition, including:

o Disembeddeding the Military Transition Teams.

o Requests U.S. forces to vacate Forward Operating Bases / Battle Positions in Western and Northern Iraq.

o Alienates Coalition at training academies.

• Iraqi Security Forces make no effort to quell violence or provide security in Sunni neighborhoods.

• Iraqi Security Forces actively participate in attacks on Sunnis, with the direction of senior leaders in the ministries of Defense or Interior.

• Shiite militias are fully mobilized, with the assistance of the government, and deployed to strike at Sunni targets. Or, the Shiite militias are fully incorporated into the Iraqi Security Forces without certification from Coalition trainers.

• Sunni military officers are dismissed en masse from the Iraqi Army.

• Kurdish officers and soldiers leave their posts and return to Kurdistan, and reform into Peshmerga units.

• Attacks against other religious shrines escalate, and none of the parties make any pretense about caring.

• Coalition military forces pull back from forward positions to main regional bases.

I don’t think that the conditions that Roggio cites have come to pass. Both Sunnis and Shiites continue to remain engaged in a natinional government.

What are seeing is not civil war, but an attempt to incite one.

details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report

I am sick and tired of seeing that phrase in press stories.

Bush Edges Closer to Iran Talks

[Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that the American military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter Al Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.]

Is that an attempt at a Walter Cronkite moment?

Allah: There’s nothing in the NYSun story that suggests Bush isn’t dealing with the pressure well. The internal review at State and at the Pentagon have been going on for months. They started immediately after the ISG was commissioned by Congress. Realists in Congress thought they could beat the President with Baker et. al. The Pres had the NSC run a review of it’s own to counter the surrender monkeys in the Baker/Scowcroft Axis. State wants to talk to Iran and Syria, but State always wants to talk.

There is one thing Bush understands that few at State do. You can’t negotiate with tyrants because tyrants don’t know how to negotiate. Politics in Syria and Iran consists of murder, blackmail, and/or opression. They don’t negotiate in good faith with internal power rivals why would anyone expect them to negotiate in good faith with external rivals. Bush is still looking at tranformation of the region as the key to long term success in the GWOT. I haven’t seen him back down one inch on that in six years. I haven’t seen him ever suggest anything but mistrust and contempt for the Syrian and Iranian dictators. I think you’ve overreached with your suspicions. You need to start reading these stories more closely. You’re getting sloppy.

Followed by a clink of glasses and quick phone calls to their sources in the CIA to get the next classified document for the front page.

I’m amazed he lasted this long. For all the thanks he gets for trying to save our lives, he’s should just quit and leave us to our own devices. We don’t deserve his loyalty.

He’s a great man, Gulliver in a world of Lilliputians.

It’s not Suni vs. Shia, its the democratic/semi-secularist/federalist vs. the Islamic fundamentalists. Declaring this a civil war and clearly stating who the adversaries are would be a very powerful strategic move.

For one, it would more clearly represent the reality on the ground. Sure there is massive sectarian violence. But who is stirring that up? And why? (hint: divide and conquer)

Also, calling this out as a civil war forces individuals and organizations within Iraq to firmly chose a side. This would, hopefully, have the bonus advantage of uniting the Shia and Sunni in a common cause.

Civil war in Iraq no more signals the failure of U.S. policy than the American Civil War signaled the failure of colonia era French policy.

We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully……..not for dramatic effect.

Horsepuckey.

“The media has, by and large, been very fearful of being perceived of being liberally biased,” Hollihan said.

Wrong.

The media is fearful the public audience will switch their perception of media bias and start veiwing liberal media bias as the bad thing that it really is.

But of course there was a clear cut side to ally with in that war…the Muslims against the Christians.