Iraq - Civil War?
Just around a week ago, maybe a little more; the subject came into the front of the news concerning whether or not the circumstances in Iraq should or should not be considered a 'Civil War.' NBC one day made the announcements that starting that day the network along with their cable stations MSNBC and CNBC would refer to Iraq as a civil war. This brought the subject to discussion on almost all news channels for a couple of days or so.
True enough to an extent that either way it could be considered really just a matter of terminology. What we term it, doesn't change the circumstances. However, I suppose that it's considered to be of some significance, in that the White House apparently rejects the term.
I suppose that the difference for the White House is that they very much want the war to be termed as a/(the) 'War on Terror' - and if it's categorized as a 'Civil War' taking place between various factions within Iraq then that seems to detract from that concept.
Something that's occurred to me regarding the subject is this.
There's been a great amount of talk concerning if, whether, when the U.S. will pull out of Iraq.
For the sake of identifying the conditions there; say for the sake of illustration that the U.S. could somehow - just pull out - quickly as possible. Within weeks.
The purpose of that illustration is this. If suddenly the U.S. was no longer a force in Iraq. Then, what would it be?
Would the various factions continue to fight? If so, then would it be considered a 'Civil War?'
Can't say for sure, but, it seems to me at this point, (with what I've got to go on), that if the U.S. was to suddenly get out of Iraq; there would likely be a continuation of the fighting. And, if that's the case, then would it be considered a 'Civil War' or not?
It just seems to me that this would be the way to determine whether or not the circumstances in Iraq make up a 'Civil War' or not.
Personally, I expect that if the U.S. suddenly departed Iraq, it would actually turn into a regional war. Likely starting with Iran backing the Shiite majority in Iraq, which I expect would have a domino effect.
True enough to an extent that either way it could be considered really just a matter of terminology. What we term it, doesn't change the circumstances. However, I suppose that it's considered to be of some significance, in that the White House apparently rejects the term.
I suppose that the difference for the White House is that they very much want the war to be termed as a/(the) 'War on Terror' - and if it's categorized as a 'Civil War' taking place between various factions within Iraq then that seems to detract from that concept.
Something that's occurred to me regarding the subject is this.
There's been a great amount of talk concerning if, whether, when the U.S. will pull out of Iraq.
For the sake of identifying the conditions there; say for the sake of illustration that the U.S. could somehow - just pull out - quickly as possible. Within weeks.
The purpose of that illustration is this. If suddenly the U.S. was no longer a force in Iraq. Then, what would it be?
Would the various factions continue to fight? If so, then would it be considered a 'Civil War?'
Can't say for sure, but, it seems to me at this point, (with what I've got to go on), that if the U.S. was to suddenly get out of Iraq; there would likely be a continuation of the fighting. And, if that's the case, then would it be considered a 'Civil War' or not?
It just seems to me that this would be the way to determine whether or not the circumstances in Iraq make up a 'Civil War' or not.
Personally, I expect that if the U.S. suddenly departed Iraq, it would actually turn into a regional war. Likely starting with Iran backing the Shiite majority in Iraq, which I expect would have a domino effect.
posted by Dave at 1:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home