When is a Civil War not a Civil War? When it's Iraq of course

Those who cry and stamp their feet exclaiming that Iraq is NOT in a state of civil war, I have to ask what level of violence do they need to see in order for the say that Iraq is in a state of civil war?

Do they need to see set piece battles?

Do they need to see one side in blue and the other in gray?

Do they need to see a Sunni Lee and Shiite Grant?

Do they need to see an equivalent of Gettysburg in order to convince them of what seems to be obvious to the non-Bushbots across the country.

In order to bring certain people and realty together again, let us focus on that perversion of language known as the phrase "civil war."

You don't have to be a big fan of that great student of language George Carlin (although it helps) to know that there is no such thing as a "civil war." No one says "Pardon me," before they fire off a few rounds from their machine gun, nor do they say "Sorry!" afterward. There is simply no such thing as a "civil war." It does not exist.

Instead of saying "civil war," one should use the phrase "internal warfare" or "internal conflict." This makes much more sense because it is an apt description. It is internal, meaning within something, such as the nation itself or amongst one group of people. The only reason War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression is not used more often because the winning side prefers to refer to the conflict as an internal war, meaning within the U.S or among Americans, rather than legitimize the existence of separate Southern Confederacy or prevent such Confederacy from claiming decent from the original Articles of Confederation. The winners get to do this.

Now, once we know the correct term to use in this case, then we can realize what the situation in Iraq truly is about. It is, without question, a state of "internal war." The fighting is occurring within Iraqi society. Sunni vs. Shiites are two of the main ethno-religious factions within Iraq. They are fighting and killing each other on the streets. It is organized violence, it is war. Plus, certain Sunnis are also fighting against the elected government. It's an insurgency. That's also internal warfare, fighting amongst political groups i.e. those who control the state and its security apparatus and those opposed to them. In the case of Iraq, this goes back to the ethno-religious struggle. The Shiites control the apparatus of the state and Sunnis that are opposed them are a part of the insurgency.

Iraq has been in a state of internal warfare once the U.S. helped to create a government of native Iraqis. Soon the insurgency, which had been just fighting the U.S. occupation, (And yes, it is an occupation for the "liberators" have completed their mission, meaning they've overthrown the oppressive government of Saddam Hussein. That was true even after World War II. U.S. forces went from liberators to occupiers and still remain so to this day because they haven't completely left Germany and Japan.) was now fighting an Iraqi government, one that had been legitimized after two elections.

So U.S. forces are right in the middle of internal warfare within Iraq, no ifs, ands or buts about it. It's there right in front of you on the TV screen, in the newspages, and in the computer downloads. Since it is highly doubtful young men and women in the U.S. joined the military in order become referees in the middle of such conflicts (which is what they've become), there is no point in their presence in Iraq either. U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, have simply taken over for Saddam Hussein as the centrifugal force holding an artificial country like Iraq together. In order to keep the country from flying apart, the U.S. would have to have a military presence within the country for well over 25 to 30 years (and probably longer) while the building of an actual Iraqi nation (with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars of course) took place. They would also still have to defend themselves from terrorist attack on a constant basis.

The only way out of Iraq is to acknowledge Iraq as being an artificial country and acknowledge the differences that exist. It also requires creating a loose , decentralized state (which already exists in the Kurdish areas.) where everyone can have power and sovereignty of some sort where they live. This has to be the true successor to the secularized tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Baathists, not a U.S. sponsored centralized government backed by foreign guns. The quicker all sides in this internal warfare can get something for their sacrifices, the quicker U.S. forces can exit, and that means all of them. It is the only way to defuse the situation of internal warfare.

That's the kind of war Iraq is currently going through, and there's nothing civil about it.

---Sean Scallon