Sen. Reid: Iraq devolves into 'civil war'

[Bustem' Down]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Declaring that he believes the situation in Iraq has devolved into a civil war, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday he plans to try to bring the war back up for debate on the Senate floor.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/20/iraq.democrats/index.html

Well duh. That's what it's called when the citizens fight against the established government. If there wasn't a civil war we would have left already.

 

[SamSpade]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/20/iraq.democrats/index.html

Well duh. That's what it's called when the citizens fight against the established government. If there wasn't a civil war we would have left already.

How would you define a few thousand fomenting terror among a citizenry of millions who have no real beef with the government? When our forefathers fought the British, they shouted Taxation Without Representation. They wanted a voice in the government, their grievances heard and they wanted the taxes and impositions to end. What are these guys' requests? They're not even making any.

I mean, is there even the slightest chance that thousands of Iraqis will fight in pitched battles against one another? Isn't the situation in Iraq more like massive gang warfare, while most stay inside hoping they won't get caught in the middle?

I guess I don't think I'd call that civil war. Every poll suggests that while Iraqis want us to leave, they also don't want us to leave JUST YET.

 

[ylexot]

That's what it's called when the citizens fight against the established government.

Actually, that's called a revolt.

"Sire, the peasants are revolting!"
"You said it... they stink on ice!"

 

[Kerad]

As I understand it, the majority of attacks against Iraqi citizens is Shia vs. Sunni violence. Two different factions (with some meddling from outside interests) fighting to gain control of the country....correct?

Though they may not resemble two seperate "armies" or grand battles as we usually think of them...this is starting to look like "civil war" to me.

 

[SamSpade]

As I understand it, the majority of attacks against Iraqi citizens is Shia vs. Sunni violence. Two different factions (with some meddling from outside interests) fighting to gain control of the country....correct?

Though they may not resemble two seperate "armies" or grand battles as we usually think of them...this is starting to look like "civil war" to me.

I see some of that - but it still looks like on a scale of gangs and race riots. Shades of Northern Ireland. Was that civil war?

You're right, no grand battles. But it's not as though the citizenry is largely involved. Rwanda, Eritrea, Bosnia - that was civil war. This is 20 thousand thugs terrorizing 25 million people with their violence. There aren't demands, government buildings taken over, meetings with the press, statements against the government. There are no discernible factions. It could escalate into that; you could have religious strife along the lines of the civil war in India, years ago. But it hasn't reached that yet. Most of the citizens just want it to end. There's just a tiny fraction perpetuating the violence.

 

[Kerad]

I see some of that - but it still looks like on a scale of gangs and race riots. Shades of Northern Ireland. Was that civil war?

You're right, no grand battles. But it's not as though the citizenry is largely involved. Rwanda, Eritrea, Bosnia - that was civil war. This is 20 thousand thugs terrorizing 25 million people with their violence. There aren't demands, government buildings taken over, meetings with the press, statements against the government. There are no discernible factions. It could escalate into that; you could have religious strife along the lines of the civil war in India, years ago. But it hasn't reached that yet. Most of the citizens just want it to end. There's just a tiny fraction perpetuating the violence.

I can see you points, as well. There is no way to easily define the situation. It certainly becomes even more complicated when you factor in that the Iraqi police/security forces (the very ones we trained) are contributing to the problem. Their loyalty lies to their particular faction first...and to the greater good of "Iraq" second. Even if/when Iraq actually has a full blown army again...the problem will always be there. Just like with Lebanon's army. the official government of Lebanon claims they can't send their forces down south to deal with Hezbellah because a good percentage of their forces are loyal to Hezbellah. Seriously screwed up if you ask me.

 

[Bruzilla]

Reid needs to update his talking points before expressing what he "really believes in." The civil war scare tactic was tried and failed by the Dems, and was dropped several weeks ago. Reid is supposed to be condemning Bush for not solving the Israel/Lebanon problem. I hope he fires the staffers who failed to update him on what he believes in his heart.

 

[ylexot]

Maybe Reid should quote this letter from an expert on Iraq...