Much of the discussion lately is about IF Iraq is in a "civil war."
But no one bothers to define the phrase before they start to opine about it.
Here's my attempt at a definition:
To have a "civil war" you must first have AN ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT TO REBEL AGAINST...!
Iraq only has a proposed government...the one that was recently elected...under the occupation.
Iraq would seem much more like a "civil war"...IF there had been an established government...and then, a rebellion arose against the old established government.
This would fit the US civil war model of 1861.
Additionally, can you have a civil war while an occupation is going on...? I don't think so... Essentially the occupation force tries to impose it's government on the occupied nation...and some rebel against this... But is that a civil war...? Probably not because the occupation force is not really a part of the "civitas"...it's not "of the people."
So an insurgency against an occupation is not a civil war... Was France in a civil war after the 1944 occupation...? After all there was a "french" government in Vichy...imposed by the Germans and their French quislings...?
Obviously France was not in a civil war after 1944...
I would have to say that the French model should apply to Iraq... There is no real established government...there is only a government proposed by the occupation forces... Hence the insurgency against the occupation is not a "rebellion"... If you assume that you can't rebel against something that was never legimate in the first place...!
THE LACK OF AN ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT TO REBEL AGAINST MAKES TRUE CIVIL WAR IMPOSSIBLE IN IRAQ... THIS IS AN INSURGENCY AGAINST AN OCCUPATION...AND AGAINST THE OCCUPATION'S "PLAN" FOR THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY...
The fact that various native groups are supporting various plans...does not make it a civil war... The best definition of Iraq presently is an insurgency boardering on anachy... Anarchy being the state of nature where there is no government...
Curiously, this notion of "territorial government" is rather new to human history...
In the old days...all government was tribal...that's to say based on "a people" or a race, not on a territorial peice of land. We had Kings of the English...not Kings of England...in the early days.
Iraq still has it's tribal affiliations intact...and perhaps ready to govern...
So maybe Iraq is not in a civil war...maybe Iraq is just "occupied" by a foreign military...?
