What Threshold Civil War?

One of the arguments that I've heard on the web for getting out of Iraq is that what we are dealing with over there is a civil war. That's an argument that resonates with me. For the most part, I'm a big believer in letting countries settle their own differences when at all possible. As much as I love our country, I'd be the first to admit that our record on foriegn involvement is mixed at best. So, is the war in Iraq a "civil war?"

My knowledge on what makes a civil war is limited. The best background I have is from what I've learned of America's war over a hundred years ago. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much in common. A defined area of the country(the South) stated their intention to withdraw from the Union. (They even sealed the deal by firing on a Union fort.) I have heard of no sizable group making that claim. The South also withdrew from the Union government. Again, the last time that I checked, all constituent groups were present and accounted for in the Iraqi government. Established borders were in place, a nominal government was set up the in succeeding zone, and the causes of the conflict were known. I know of no established borders for hostility in Iraq, there is no identifiable opposition government, and the disputes are somewhat fluid to say the least.

About the only thing that those who claim that a civil war is in progress can point to is that there is ongoing violence against the government and the Americans, and that the violence is being conducted by Iraqi's. Part of that could be disputed, as it appears that at least a part of the violence is foriegn sponsored. If we are using domestic violence as the sole criteria for declaring a civil war, then I have to ask just how much violence does it take to call it a war?

Does it need to be roughly 50-50? 60-40? How about 90-10? If 10% of the Iraqi's wanted to settle this conflict violently, can there be any realy doubt that things would be much worse? How about 1%? That would be roughly 150,000 Iraqis. They know the territory. Could we maintain a semblance of order with 150,000 Iraqis dedicated to war?

When is it a war, and when is it just a bunch of thugs with guns and explosives? It's an important question to ask. A relatively small band of well-armed thugs can create the appearance of a war, and enslave a poorly armed nation. Our own forefathers recognized this fact when they crafted the 2nd ammendment to our Constitution.

For myself, I believe they're thugs. I can't honestly say that I know what the outcome will be long term if we stay, but if we go then we abandon a nation to tyranny. For those who claim that our actions so far have created more terrorists, think of how many will rise against us as they live each day under a dictatorship and know that it was our lack of will that put the monsters in charge. In time, I believe that Iraq will develop the tools it needs to set its own course. It may not be one that sees the US as a friend, but at least then they will see us as a nation that gave them a chance.

So: Is it a war?

Note to Democrats: I'm not scared. I am, however, concerned...

I've read several posts on the web from Democrat types which imply or state that the Republicans are using terrorism to frighten people into voting for them. The writer immediately follows up with some ranting statements that we shouldn't fall for it, that we should vote based on intelligent reasoning or whatever. The strategy might have some merit, but for two fatal flaws.

1. I'm not scared. Not really. No one I know is really scared. When I fly, I'm a lot more afraid of the long security lines that I will face than any real possibility that someone on the plane is going to detonate his shirt buttons by remote control. I am concerned, however. I know that attacks have occurred. Others have been caught in the planning stage, and it is likely that more are being planned. Without aggressive action to detect and prevent these attacks, more will succeed. Which brings me-

2. I never hear any intelligent reasoning following the criticism. Most of what follows tends to center on how incompetent the administration is or how it is out to kill civil rights, but the conversation never gets back to the point: Where is the intelligent reasoning? What would the Democrats do differently? How are they going to address my security concerns? What I seem to be hearing most is that if we pull out of Iraq and stress dialogue that things will improve.

I don't believe it.

Democrats have an opportunity this fall to pick up a lot of dissatisfied conservative voters. There are still a lot of concerns out there that need to be addressed. Border security is a prime example. But they won't gain anything by simply railing. They will have to offer and alternative.