Debate:Define Civil War

Again, liberals have skewered another meaning, this time civil war. Iraq is a low level civil war, they claim. I didn't know there were so many levels of civil war. 25,000 Al Qaeda bandits try to provoke Sunnis and Shiites to fight each other. Out 24 million citizens, how many people are fighting for one side or another? possibly 1%? Then 240k people are fighting each other in a low level civil war?--jp 20:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

1% is enough for a war (in most countries the military comprises less than 1% of the total population): it means 1 out of every 50 males is fighting, which probably means something like 1 out of every 30 able bodied males: so chances are every Iraqi knows at least 1 person who's fighting for some faction.

If this is not a civil war, then what is it?

Middle Man

It's a war on terror with no defined armies, only groups of competing militias. Porous borders with enemy nations surrounding on all sides, providing proxy support. --jp 16:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Civil wars can be of varying intensity and size. The United States' Civil War completely dwarfed in size and area and casualty counts most civil wars of the 20th Century...like El Salvador's for example. But just because El Salvador's was small and limited doesn't mean it wasn't a civil war. Iraq falls into that category, with the added pressure of a failing government. If the al-Maliki government collapses, then you'll have a failed state. Which is the only thing that could be worse than what we have right now in Iraq.--Dave3172 16:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

"No defined armies"?

1. U.S. military

2. British military

3. Coalition peacekeeping forces

4. Iraqi military

5. Al Quieda

6. Al Sadr's Shiitte militia

7. Sunni death squads

8. Shiite death squads

...

Some of these are not traditional armies, but neither are the various rebel factions fighting civil wars in Africa and Latin America.

Middle Man

Not to mention foreign fighters, and common criminals. Czolgolz 23:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

So then civil war meaning armies of any nation? Middle Man, I find you quite knowledgable and can understand your rebuttal quite well. Is it a civil war or a world wide war then? What you are describing is a world wide war or maybe a war of independence. If you look at the American civil war, both sides looked to other nations support however none participated in military action. In Iraq, you have outside powers (defined), possibly caught up in a war with militias and foreign extremist elements (quasi undefined). North Iraq versus Middle Iraq versus Southern Iraq would in fact describe a civil war, pitting a side against another. Shiite militias/death squads versus Sunni militias/death squads with a guerilla Al Qaeda movement of foreign fighters is a civil war? More like a religious war or war of independence. You have a coalition of willing nations trying to prevent an elected govt from failing (much like the French coming to Americas defense in 1776). What does the Iraqi population want of their country, rogue bandits taking charge or their elected govt? The line is blurred, you can make your case it is a civil war, it is not a civil war, it is a low level civil war, a religious war. It is a national conflict with many nations contributing to the success or the defeat of the current government.--jp 23:33, 4 May 2007 (EDT)