From: "Rich Gauszka" 

I'm not the only one calling it a civil war.  Nor do I pine for the
incompetence of the Bush Administration whose actions were instrumental in
creating the conditions for those deaths

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/20/hagel-iraq-civil-war/
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said that Iraq is in a
"very defined civil war" and that the Middle East is "the
most unstable we've seen since 1948."
-------------

It appears that commanders need permission from the White House to even use
the term 'civil war'. If one is not going on why would the term be banned?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100798
.html
Former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, Ned Walker, said if military
commanders were talking about civil war they must have been given
permission from the White House to do so and Bush was testing public
opinion by uttering the phrase.

----------

Of course now the term 'miniature civil war' has now been offered

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Aug22/0,4670,IraqBritishCommander,00.html
WASHINGTON - The British deputy to the top U.S. commander in Iraq said
Tuesday the country's sectarian conflict is not a full-blown civil war but
could be described as a"civil war in miniature."

"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44ecd5b9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> I'm not sure what Rumsfeld's definition of civil war is, nor do I know
> what yours is, though apparently, you pine for a big bang with lots of
> death so that the "chimp" Bush and his "poodles"
in the UK and Australia
> will look bad -- i.e. you seem to want to cut the nose off the face of the
> world so that Bush fails  get and calling the situation a  hopeless civil war for going on 4 years
> certainly has the potential for creating a self-fulfilling prophecy>
>
> I don't mean the above in a mean spirited way, but it is the way I see it
> after all this time Rich. That said, lets go on to see what
"General Bob"
> (the senior British representative in Iraq) thinks about the
"civil war:"
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/08/mil-060822-dod01.
htm
> ====
> GEN. FRY: Well, I think it makes a great deal of difference in this
> particular case. If you have a civil war, then typically and
> characteristically, you have the collapse of the central institutions of
> government. In an absence of government, there's the possibility of chaos.
> You also tend to lose the instruments of security, and if the army takes
> part on one side or the other, then, of course, that can have equally
> significant implications. So I don't think we're talking about labels or
> military semantics here. I think we're talking about qualitative
> differences.
>
> There is a very intense sectarian conflict going on, but it is
> geographically defined. It is not resulting in the mass movement of
> population, which is characteristically what civil wars do. And it's still
> being conducted in an environment which has the central institutions of
> the state functioning. Now, that's the situation that I recognize at the
> present time. I do not see that as civil war, and neither do I draw glib
> differences between civil war and sectarian conflict. I think the
> differences are very substantial and still in existence in Iraq today.
>
> ...
> I think what we've got -- if you look at the whole of Iraq at the present
> time is sectarian conflict, which is highly specifically defined in
> geographical terms. This is essentially defined by the area between
> metropolitan Baghdad and somewhere like Baqubah, which is about 30 to 40
> miles away from Baghdad.
>
> Now, within that area, there is a sectarian conflict going on. But I think
> that if you're talking in terms of civil war, you would have to look to
> the rest of the country. Fourteen out of 18 provinces in this country are
> almost free of violence at the present time. We have a government which is
> legislating every day, or will be legislating when they come back from the
> process of recess, and certainly is governing every day. We have
> instruments -- the security instruments are entirely answerable to central
> government, and are vigorously being employed on the streets of Baghdad at
> the present time. So what I think we have is something which is at the
> very best civil war in miniature, at the very best. But I don't think it
> actually even meets that definition. I think we have something which is
> localized, relatively difficult to deal with, but we're now beginning to
> take measures which are genuinely eating into the sectarian violence which
> has been operating up until now.
> =====
>
> So I dunno Rich, have your way and continue calling it a civil war, I'll
> keep assuming that it's going to be fine in the end -- I don't expect that
> end any time soon, never did.
>
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44ec8761$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Yep - just cause Rumsfeld doesn't know the definition of civil war
>> doesn't mean it's not happening. The only 'frenzied' activity will be the
>> apologists for the Bushies seeking explanation for an 'involuntary' call
>> up when just several months ago they were parroting a reduction of forces
>> and denigrating those who said that was unrealistic in the face of civil
>> war.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>> news:44ec83b5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> You guys have been parroting "civil war" since days
after Saddams statue
>>> fell (hell, I bet if two Iraqis, a Sunni and a Shia, were shinnying up
>>> the rope at the same time that would be the first sign of it), maybe
>>> someday it'll be true, but I doubt it.
>>>
>>> Here's the less frenzied version of the IRR call up: >> Reuters version is causing such excitement escapes me, they've always
>>> said troop levels will go up and down according to need>
>>> http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?id=534
>>> The authorization allows up to 2,500 Marines to be on involuntary active
>>> duty at any time. But the actual number will depend on how many Marines
>>> volunteer for deployments within the global war on terrorism. The
>>> service has set up a Web site,
>>> https://mcmps.manpower.usmc.mil/MCMPS/GIDA/, to allow IRR Marines and
>>> recent retirees to volunteer for war on terror assignments.
>>>
>>> Officials envision a much smaller number of involuntary activations than
>>> the maximum authorization. "There is that chance (of calling up the
>>> maximum authorized), even though it seems rather slight,"
O'Connor said.
>>>
>>> Involuntarily activated Marines will receive at least five months notice
>>> before they have to report for an average of 12 to 18 months of
>>> additional active duty, officials said. The service is specifically
>>> targeting Marines in the combat arms, communications, intelligence,
>>> engineer and military police career fields.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44ec8060$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> It's the out of control civil war  that will expend all the Pentagon
>>>> resources for some time to come.  Were fucked if we stay
and probably
>>>> more fucked in the region if we leave. George W Bush the
best 'fuckin'
>>>> president we ever had?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:44ec6cdd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:44ec5a55$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:44ec53cc{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> > How long will it take before the pool of
35,000 is exhausted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A news item here today suggests that half of the
British troops
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>> engaged will be withdrawn next year, leaving half
"indefinitely".
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1221071.ece
>>>>>
>>>>> "A force of around 4,000 British troops will stay
behind in Iraq for
>>>>> an
>>>>> indefinite period, even after all provinces controlled
by the UK are
>>>>> handed
>>>>> over to the Baghdad government in nine months' time,
senior defence
>>>>> sources
>>>>> said yesterday."
>>>>>
>>>>> Just over half.  It looks like the US is building
pretty permanent
>>>>> bases,
>>>>> too.  Welcome to your Northern Ireland - the Iraqi
resistance will not
>>>>> rest
>>>>> until you're gone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5