 | |  |
 |
|
|
|
Is
the Conflict in Iraq 'Civil War'? |
Posted:
11.29.06
|
|
|
While journalists, politicians and the general public debate
whether the fighting in Iraq constitutes a "civil war,"
various commissions are preparing reports recommending strategies
for a successful outcome.
Printer-friendly version: PDF
|
|
|
|
|
Fighting between groups of Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims has
killed more than 3,700 Iraqis in October, according to a United
Nations report.
 The
increase in violence has led news organizations such as NBC and
the Los Angeles Times to officially refer to the situation as
a "civil war," sparking a debate over words and their
implications for U.S. policy
"It's something that we have a responsibility to ask ourselves
as we're reporting and to try to get as close to the truth as
possible," Marjorie Miller, foreign editor at the Los Angeles
Times, told the NewsHour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A civil war? |
|
|
|
|
|
President Bush has not yet called the situation in Iraq a civil
war.
"No question it's tough," Mr. Bush said. "There's
a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented, in my opinion,
because of these attacks by al-Qaida, causing people to seek reprisal."
Traditionally, the term "civil war" refers to an armed
conflict between a government and internal challengers that results
in the deaths of a large number of people -- 1,000 over a year
is a common benchmark, according to Nicholas Sambanis, a professor
of political science at Yale University.
 However
other historians say the different sides in a civil war usually
have stated goals that divide the general public.
"At this point in Iraq there are still Sunnis and Kurds
and Shiite who want to have stability, and they are trying to
put down the insurgents. Now it is also purely possible that at
some point they will give up. Then it is a civil war," Donald
Kagan, a history professor from Yale University who's written
extensively about war, told the NewsHour.
Historians also disagree about whether the use of the term "civil
war" is helpful or harmful.
Some believe that it is used as propaganda to scare America into
removing troops.
"I think most people regard civil wars as bigger things,
more difficult, more complicated, more hard to resolve without
a long, hard war than does the alternative term. And I think that's
why people are using it," said Kagan.
Others think using the term forces the public to pay attention
to the situation.
"It's inevitable that, in public discussions, things will
be simplified. Probably the most neutral term to use would be
'the war in Iraq,' but then you have to explain what's going on.
If you want another shorthand term that does turn people's attention
one way or another, 'civil war' does that," Richard Betts,
a professor of political science at Columbia University, told
the NewsHour.
|
|
|
|
The Iraq
Study Group |
|
|
|
|
|
As the use of the term is
debated, others are looking for ways to create a successful outcome
in Iraq.
One team attempting this is the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan
commission led by former secretary of state James Baker, a Republican,
and former Representative Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.
 The
group is meeting this week and expects to present its policy recommendations
to Congress in December.
Although its decisions are not yet final, one idea being examined
is to engage Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Syria, to get
them to help support the country's fledgling government.
In addition, the group, made up of five Republicans and five
Democrats, is considering a plan that could include a gradual
withdrawal of U.S. troops, The Washington Post reported.
|
|
|
|
Other options
in Iraq |
|
|
|
|
|
President Bush is not bound to act on the Iraq Study Group's
recommendations, and he has expressed a desire to consider the
results of other groups analyzing Iraq, including one from the
Pentagon and one from the president's own National Security Council.
 The
Pentagon panel seems to favor a policy of "Going Long"
-- a plan in which the number of troops would be boosted initially.
But more troops would be used to train Iraqi security forces and
fewer would be used in direct combat positions, The New York Times
reported.
Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, a Vietnam veteran who
may run for president in 2008, also has argued that the United
States needs to increase, not decrease the number of troops in
Iraq, despite the clear strain it will put on the military.
"There's no good options," McCain told ABC News. "But
the consequences of failure are severe, and I believe that we
must do what's necessary to prevail. And I understand how terrible
this is. The young men and women who are in the military today,
and God bless them, they'll respond if called upon to."
--
Compiled by Annie Schleicher for NewsHour Extra
Do you have an opinion about this article? Or do you have
a personal experience related to this article that you'd like
to share with our readers? Click
here to submit your story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American schools and financial aid should be only for legal citizens of the United States. There should be no exceptions to this.
