Is Iraq in a civil war?
posted at 8:35 am on May 29, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m not going to quote from the article to tip the answer. The whole thing is worth reading.
I will direct you to interesting information about the author, though.
David A. Patten is a sergeant with the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from Stony Brook University. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Army.
“He holds a doctorate in philosophy from Stony Brook University.”
A sergeant with a PhD. Hm.
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Excellent read, and extremely thorough. Sgt. Patten definitely has it all in one sock.
Freelancer on May 29, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Here’s something I never quite got: who cares if it’s a civil war?
I mean, hasn’t the whole idea of an Iraqi civil war been nothing but drama-bait from the MSM?
unamused on May 29, 2007 at 9:45 AM
What is no, Alex.
Seixon on May 29, 2007 at 10:02 AM
In the USAF, it’s hard to compete for senior NCO promotions if you don’t possess at least a bachelor’s degree.
To be competitive for promotion to E-8/E-9, you’d better have multiple degrees and/or an MBA.
Anyhoo…I agree with the good Sgt. Patten that sectarian violence doesn’t equal civil war. Much of the violence seems to be motivated by good old-fashioned hatred by animals who don’t have any particular political agenda or ambitions.
flipflop on May 29, 2007 at 10:08 AM
I tend to agree… what we have in Iraq is NOT a civil war, its anarchy supported by outside groups and countries…
Its gangs, tribes, and religious leaders with “militias” (armed gangs), who are struggling in a power vacuum.
There are no opposing governments… no opposing armies… just anarchy.
Problem is that you can’t figure out a solution to a problem until you DEFINE it. We’ve allowed the MSM and the Left… and our enemies… to define the terms and thus drive the agenda.
They’re right… there is no War on Terror… its a war against Militant Islam! This is why we still allow our enemies to have mouthpieces and propoganda tools on our own soil (CAIR).
Romeo13 on May 29, 2007 at 10:41 AM
No clear criteria? Like Pelosi, Reid and their ilk are doing everyday in trying to run the war instead of Gen. Petraeus?
One beef I do have with this article…fourth paragraph
I would have to argue that the killing of 3000 Americans on 9-11 would be a previously posed significant terrorist threat!
abinitioadinfinitum on May 29, 2007 at 12:00 PM
What’s more, there is no Iraq War. We invaded, we removed the existing regime, we worked with available nationals to form a government that would attempt to serve ALL Iraqis instead of just the ruling elite. What is happening now hasn’t been “war” for years. We, as the occupying force, are aiding the nascent government to maintain some form of stability until their own infrastructure is able to control its own land. Leaving before that is accomplished is deserting and betraying a friend. We cannot do that.
Freelancer on May 29, 2007 at 4:50 PM
It’s a religious war. Shi’ites v. Sunnis. Starting around 650 A.D. and simmering and erupting ever since.
Nothing technically “civil” about that in the sense of: different segments of a country fighting for normal goals (power over laws, infrastructure, resources, etc.).
They are fighting over the control of Islam, essentially.
If they were all Sunnis or Shi’ites, and were then battling over oil rights or building contacts, it might qualify as a civil war.
But there is no ultimate earthly reconciliation for these opposed “heresies”.
Nothing can be given up (as slavery was abandoned by the Confederate States) that will calm this conflict.
Only the utter subjugation -or annihilation- of the “other” will end this “holy” schism.
Nothing civil about that.
profitsbeard on May 29, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Comment pages: