Valiant on January 19, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Like I said, you want to avoid answering for your untenable position by changing the subject. You need to admit that your entire argument has been defeated by truth and logic.

Our armed forces are not meals on wheels social engineers. To use them as such is to abuse them.

I’ll remember that the next time there is a national disaster. I’ll also remind the state of Louisiana that the Army Corp of Engineers are not actually the one’s that should repair and expand the levee system in that state. That duty belongs to private contractors and should be paid by the State of Louisiana and not funded by federal funds. After all, doing such work would demean the troops of the Corp, would it not?

Oh, and remind the people in other countries that suffer massive death and devastation during a tsunami, earthquake, or other disaster that it is not the job of the US military to provide support both in manpower and in materials, so they are on their own the next time.

Sorry everyone, it has been determined that it is an abuse of the military to actually help people and save lives.

Get real!

Is Iraq in a civil war or not?

Excellent Question.

As a battle between Sunni and Shia, I would say that is an ideological battle that has gone on for decades, and even centuries, and has been fought throughout the entire middle east at one time or another. Also, both side of this conflict have historically kept to different geological locations and different governments. I guess that aspect could be called a civil war as they are struggling to assert their control over the centralized government, but the situation is a lot more complicated than that. I also don’t think most of the Iraqi people support this conflict, so it is not a very large civil war. To me, this is closer to a tribal, or regional, war being waged by a small percentage of the Iraqi people.

As far as the war the insurgency is waging, that is closer to a revolutionary war and not a civil war as the insurgents are trying not only to overthrow a current government to install one of their own, but is doing this as part of an attempt to enforce their rule over all aspects of life in Iraq, including religion. Most of the insurgents are foreigners and that complicates the civil war comparison. Other countries are supporting the insurgents, and both side of the Sunni/Shia conflict as to further the insurgency, so that supports a revolutionary war scenario.

It looks to me like there are several conflicts going on here, a tribal based ‘civil’ war and a foreign based and supported revolutionary war. Adding to this are several small groups and individuals that attack Americans and Iraqis for no reason other than to cause death and destruction, something which happens in every armed conflict.

None of this armed conflict is supported by the majority of Iraqis and it is detrimental to all in the long run. It is important to realize this and to give our support to the government of Iraq and it’s people in general and not to pick which side we should, or should not support. The idea is to stop all armed conflict in this country.

Remember, the Iraqi government was elected by a majority of the Iraqi people. No matter how we feel about outcome of that election, the Iraqi government has requested us as an ally to help them stop the killing. That’s something we can not, and should not, ignore or abandon.

As to whether it makes a difference, the easy answer is that we’d have to use a different approach; as Bryan said above; if it was a true civil war, at least we could pick a side, and we’d know who all the parties were.

By that definition, what happened in Lebanon during the 80’s was something other than a civil war. I think your definition could use some work.

For one, it will bring us an inside ally in the war against terrorism.

Like “our friends” the Saudis. I have much less faith in our Islamist allies than you.

You see the Sudan as a weak point in the conservative agenda

Actually, it is not. Putting troops in there for an open-ended mission with no definition of victory would make it a conservative weak point. I believe we should be actively involved in a solution for Sudan (and Iraq) but unless it involves killing people and breaking things, don’t demean our military with it.

Actually what you call the war in Iraq is pretty important. You ought to know this, honora, but the military operates through doctrine that is based on its history and its study of conflicts of the past. It doesn’t just decide things willy nilly. Calling Iraq a counterinsurgency greatly impacts how the conflict there is handled and fought; calling it a civil war would have a similar impact, because in military doctrine they’re two different things. The impact wouldn’t be limited to names or naming conventions, but would cascade into everything the military does and how it handles pretty much everything on the battlefield.

The military is characterizing Iraq as a counterinsurgency operation, not a civil war, and that characterization means that operationally Iraq is a counterinsurgency. That is subject to change if the situation on the ground demands such a change. But so far that change hasn’t occurred, so for anyone to call Iraq a civil war is to go farther than the military has and step outside the way the military is handling the conflict–and they’re the ones fighting the war.

So if you want to call the war something other than what the troops on the ground are calling it, you better know what you’re talking about from a military doctrine point of view and you’d better have a very good reason to think that you know more than the commanders who are over there on the ground being contested.

Bryan on January 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM

See above note to Esthier.

So the Pentagon has a plan for civil war and another plan for insurgency. Sure hope they color code the files.

OK, I guess I haven’t made myself clear.

I agree that it doesn’t matter what it’s called, but a civil war is something that has a definition. Either Iraq has a civil war right now, or it doesn’t. If what’s going on in Iraq is not a civil war, then calling it one, won’t make it one either.

What I mean is, if the flower you’re pointing to isn’t a rose, then the argument should be about what it actually is as opposed to what you’re to call it.

Esthier on January 18, 2007 at 4:39 PM

I cannot believe this conversation. If we were dogs they would throw a bucket on water on us. Note to honora and esthier: for the love of God, let it go!!!

And you have no plan for how our national interests are served by stopping an Iraqi civil war. When in doubt, follow Washington’s advice to beware of foreign entanglements. We did that for most of the last 230 years.

Valiant on January 19, 2007 at 8:07 AM

If it is explained it to you again, will you finally listen?

Our national interests are served by keeping our troops there to prevent Iraq from turning into a country that is ruled by those who are willing to be the most cruel. The shiite will dominate certain areas, and more devestating, the insurgency will control areas, unfetterd in their access to oil resources that will allow them to spread their reign of terror to our interests throughout the world, including here at home. On top of that, the credibility of the USA will be seriously damaged by your suggestion that we surrender.

We followed Washingtons advice before WWI and WWII and we ended up fighting a stronger and more determined enemy.

Don’t bring the Sudan into this. You have already admitted you have no plan for Iraq and demanding someone have a plan for the Sudan is just your attempt to change the subject. You see the Sudan as a weak point in the conservative agenda and would rather talk about that than defend your comments that you can see are losing credibility everytime you attempt to defend them.

For one, it will bring us an inside ally in the war against terrorism.

That alone would be worth it in my opinion.

And you have no plan for how our national interests are served by stopping an Iraqi civil war. When in doubt, follow Washington’s advice to beware of foreign entanglements. We did that for most of the last 230 years.

Valiant on January 19, 2007 at 8:07 AM

Yes, and that served us so well in the past. I mean it’s not like a country preemptively attacked one of our military bases in a war where we weren’t yet involved…

Bryan Preston has a couple of outstanding posts this week that you should read.

The first discusses good/bad ‘JAM’, the mafia, and how petty politics hinders our ability to see reality. The core question: is Iraq in a “civil war” or not?……

You have no idea how to define an military victory but there needs to be an clear exit strategy.

A military victory involves as Bryan said “killing people and breaking things.” Define for me a military mission in Sudan and I will give you one for Iraq. There is none left unless you want to turn the place to glass. Our armed forces are not meals on wheels social engineers. To use them as such is to abuse them.

you have no plan for how our national interests are served by having an Iraq embroiled in a civil war.

And you have no plan for how our national interests are served by stopping an Iraqi civil war. When in doubt, follow Washington’s advice to beware of foreign entanglements. We did that for most of the last 230 years.

While it is true that Shia and Sunni recognize each other as fellow Muslims today (since a 1959 fatwah), it wasn’t always so. In spite of it, the Shia, however, still remember and lament the martyrdoms of Ali and Hussein back in 661 and 680, at the hands of the Sunnis.

It is going to take much more than an American occupation to end the sectarian violence. It is going to take the conscious exerted will of both Sunni and Shia religious leaders to quel the violence.

This isn’t a “civil war” by any of the accepted definitions of one. It’s Northern Ireland.

I believe that we’ll be in the region longer than in Germany, Japan and South Korea, and that all this talk about exiting is complete nonsense, regardless of who will be president after 2008.

I have no strategy for Iraq except tht we had better define a military victory immediately with a clear exit strategy.

Valiant on January 18, 2007 at 8:56 PM

Then how can you claim that an Iraq in civil war is no worse for the US than what is happening now? What we are doing in Iraq may in fact be what is in our best interests when we take into account that you have no plan for how our national interests are served by having an Iraq embroiled in a civil war.

You got a ally one day and the next he’s your enemy.

And Kerry is such a schmuck to say these guys are ‘losers’ that couldn’t make it through high ’scrool’ or in a job at home here. Feh. That’s why he’s the asshole he is and knew he had to marry money in order to have it.

WEll, next important thing to do is win the propaganda war at home here and get the White HOuse to start getting out and ahead of the MSM.

I have no strategy for Iraq except tht we had better define a military victory immediately with a clear exit strategy.

Valiant on January 18, 2007 at 8:56 PM

And there the problem is.

You have no idea how to define an military victory but there needs to be an clear exit strategy.

This is not Duke Nukem where war is “it’s time to kick ass and chew bubblegum”

I was born in 1972 so I can’t say for certain, however I expect that same logic is what happened with Vietnam.

IMO…

Victory is not defined by “kicking ass” and leaving, hell we already kicked the Iraq armies ass.

Once you are done kicking ass you help rebuild what you destroyed. The US still has troops in Germany, Japan, UK, Italy, and Korea.

Are those wars still going on?

People do not start wars, governments do, and once a war is started it is the people that suffer however.

Once the government surrenders you have an obligation as a human to help the people rebuild.

The US helped rebuild Japan/Germany, Korea etc. we need to due that with Iraq as well.

The citizens of Iraq have started rebuilding; they have elected a new government, etc however they still need our help with insurgents.

They seam to be having problems with foreign nations/citizens/terrorists trying to undermine their efforts.

The civil war will get worse due to infighting among the Muslims. How is this our problem? Are we going to step in all around the world every time the Religion of PeaceTM goes bloodthirsty on its own? I have no strategy for Iraq except tht we had better define a military victory immediately with a clear exit strategy.

Valiant on January 18, 2007 at 8:56 PM

You had plenty of time to read rethinker’s post just above. If not go read it. If you still don’t get it, you are a troll and need to scoot along home now.

The reason for making everything hinge on the President is the same one that explains why the Dems won’t take a real stand on their convictions, and instead vote for a “non-binding resolution of disapproval”. If they take a concrete action that supports a real position, it puts their power at risk.

As with this resolution, they get to have it both ways. If the surge turns out well, then the socialsts can claim they refused to hinder a wartime President, and take credit. If the surge turns out poorly, they can scream “We told you so!” and point at the resolution’s disapproval language.

Follow the power. It is the only reason behind every decision these jellyfish make. Without a conscience, without a morality to found themselves upon, only political expediency provides a justification for action.

On topic, a civil war would tend to require an extant government whose existing policies are opposed by the group fighting against them. We don’t quite have that condition in Iraq. Groups of now mostly external-sourced insurgents commiting acts of terror in the hopes of weakening Iraq, weakening America, and sustaining chaos in the region is what we have, and that’s not civil war.

So if you want to call the war something other than what the troops on the ground are calling it, you better know what you’re talking about from a military doctrine point of view and you’d better have a very good reason to think that you know more than the commanders who are over there on the ground being contested.

Bryan on January 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Bryan is correct. Those who are calling this Long War a civil war are mistaken and may need to educate themselves. If this were a civil war, would not the Sunni or Shiite or Kurds or all pull out of the government and declare war on the other(s)?

Just to be clear, I am asking you to look into the future after your strategy for Iraq is implemented and tell me what the conditions will be there.

csdeven,

I expect the only sound you will hear from Valiant/honora is crickets chirping.