# a civil war was a war fought between people of the same countries.
http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/7695/glossary.htmlYES# A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htmNO.... but real close..... my opinion, this definition is not keeping with the times and reality of low-tech urban combat. Many African "Civil Wars" of the past don't meet this criteria.
# Noun (Plural: Civil Wars) An internal war between to factions within a country, ie The English Civil War and the Wars of the Roses
semper.freelinuxhost.com/Articles/Information/dictionary.htm
YES# a conflict between two groups of people who are citizens of the same state
http://www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htmYES# a war between factions in the same country
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
YES# A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country or empire. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
YESThere is a very severe problem with the basic premise of this question though... We in the western countries see them all as Iraqis. We see their nation as Iraq. Nationalism is a very low priority with those people.
The borders of Iraq were put in place by the British Empire.
They identify themsleves with their religion and ethnic background; Sunni-Arab, *****e-Arab, Sunni-Kurd, *****e-Kurd, Turkomen, *****e-Persian. Their loyalties lie with their clan, their religious leader, their family.... not with Iraq.
[edit.... a major sect of a Islamic religion is filtered out in these forums? All of Islam should decend upon the offices of HiTech in holy jihad ] Its a part of the world.... the oldest of old world.... used to Alexander the Greats, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire, The Pax Mongolia (or the peace of the grave I like to consider it...).... they are used to be ruled by Kings. To think democracy would flourish there in the western ideal was simplistic and naive and arrogant.
As to cav58d that it is not a lost cause. I think I am beginning to disagree. We've made too many mistakes for too long. I think we've passed a point where the situation can be recovered. It now comes down to how bad bad can get and for how long. It's damage control now, not a complete or adequate fix of the situation.
30 years from now, this will be a study in how to screw up by the numbers for the American State Department, Administration, Congress, and the Military Leadership. We have great soldiers, but we are really hurting for competent leadership, and as a nation...... we are not at war. The American military is at war.... not the civilian population at large. No draft. No million man armies. No sizable war expenditures as compared to WWII, Korea, Vietnam.....
