Is It An Insurgency Or A Civil War? Or Both?

[Yavin4]

The MSM tries to lump all of the violence in Iraq into one pot by calling it an insurgency. However, a careful reading of the violence strongly suggests that the violence is being directed more towards other Iraqi ethnic groups and not just American troops.

[tx_dem41]

1. 9 parts CW....1 part insurgency. n/t

[whatever4]

2. Both, I think

It's hard for folks like me, because, I knew, even before this all started I'm pretty much a political ninny. What do I know? A little this and that, but not all that worldy, not all that history minded. So, I watch the news and read, but then the news spouts crap like that. And, I know it's not the whole story. I know there's far more to it, it's far more complicated, than what they report. So, I want to say "it's both", but in the end, I think I'm just making an assumption.

I know I've read stories here and other places that the civilians are targeted by insurgents, and that the opposing factions are fighting each other. There are even rumors that our own soldiers are used to cause "incidents", or target hospitals, so the records won't show how many people are suffering, from causes like depleted uranium. Doctors have been targeted in this war too. Would the US do that, to cover up something? Can we believe, anymore, that they would not? Can we hold onto that fantasy anymore?

What do you even CALL a war like this? Civil war plus? Civil war American style? What do you call it, when we have SO many civilian contractors over there making a lot of money working as hired guns?

[Imagevision]

3. add to the list of Bush created insurgents - surviving family members

who were members of the "collateral damage" Bush lied us into a war and we bought it!


http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[nickgutierrez]

4. Mostly the former, moving more toward the latter daily. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

5. "An occupation of an ethically divided nation whose differences...

were never allowed to resolve due to a 40+ year rule by a minority Sunni/Baath government we helped to install and actively supported for the first 30 years of rule."

Characterize that how you will, but it sounds like a typical imperial occupation to me.

[Lexingtonian]

6. started as insurgency

and is evolving into civil war. For the real power players the Americans are mostly a military nuisance that requires a fair amount of attention and a charade of obedience for a while longer. You know, like children who have managed to defeat their parent.

[Terran]

7. Actually, "the war in Iraq"

is mostly what I hear in the MSM (to the limited extent I participate in that anymore). And that's really been bugging me a lot lately, because who the hell are we "at war" with? We're an occupying power, there is no war in Iraq, technically, from any objective point of view. The "war" ended as soon as Baghdad was captured and Hussein was driven from power. So I can't even dignify whatever is going on there with the term "war". The insurgency and the impending civil war are real enough, but they're separate issues. We, the US and our remaining 'allies', are in an "occupation", and that's all I can really say it is.

Same goes for Afghanistan too, btw. Now, Iran: you bet your ass that will a WAR.

[pocket]

8. it is a liberation movement

repelling invaders