Defining 'Civil War'

[Levi Gamin]

I am wondering how one defines the term civil war, particularly if one happens to be the current regime running the U.S. government.

We're forever hearing these days about the 'threat of civil war breaking out in Iraq'. Well, where do you draw the line? I was just reading in our new friend and forum member Osiris's post that over 100 Iraqis a day are killed. Listening to Voice of Americamost nights, I'd say 10 to 15 American or Coalition soldiers die each day.

How many died daily in the American Civil War? Could it have possibly been that much? Anyway, what has the number of casualties to do with it? I suppose if one person a year died, a civil war could still said to be ongoing.

Indonesia's civil war with Aceh is said to have lasted 26 years, and most days, most months, during that time it hardly made the nightly news. The fighting flaring up again in Sri Lanka is also referred to as 'a threat of civil war' as they've had a truce since 2002.

My point is that with Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and whoever else bombing one another daily - there already is a civil war raging in Iraq, the Bush regime just doesn't want to admit it. Perhaps they're waiting for the combatants to don either blue or gray uniforms, because up to now, they sure ain't whistlin' Dixie.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Levi [email protected] 15 2006, 12:59 AM
How many died daily in the American Civil War?
Definitely more than that, even if you only count soldiers immediately killed in battle. Maybe 164 a day. But the U.S. Civil War was unusually bloody.

There are different definitions of civil war floating around. One favored by academics is: "a conflict with at least 1,000 battlefield casualties, involving a national government and one or more nonstate actors fighting for power."

Clearly Iraq has more than enough casualties. If you use this definition, then the war there became a civil war, as soon as the new Iraqi government and its armed forces were strong enough so the "nonstate actors" were fighting a war against it, and not just the occupation forces. If you use this definition, Washington's been actively seeking to turn the war there into a civil war: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

The U.S. army has another definition, which does seem to require everyone to put on uniforms and become clearly defined state-like actors.

But in the media discourse over Iraq, pundits don't seem to be using any of the accepted definitions of civil war. They're not really talking about civil war

Instead, they seem to be asking: will Iraq slide into a situation of massive, mutual ethnic and sectarian cleansing? Has it already?

I'd say it has. The "resistance" has been there for some time. The Shi'a militias gradually began to retaliate, death-squad style - and Washington made little or no effort to discourage them. By now, there's large-scale slaughter by both sides, with roughly 3,000 civilian casualties a month.