Egyptian President says Civil War Imminent in Iraq

#1
From the BBC
Iraqi leaders have strongly criticised Egypt's president after he said Iraq was on the verge of a civil war.
Talking to those who have had experience of the Lebanese civil war in the 1970s they can't but help see telling parallels.

Also if we take the Henderson - Singer definition of a civil war:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) '
Is Iraq already in a undeclared state of civil war as Hussein Ali Kamal has said?
 
#3
castlereagh said:
Also if we take the Henderson - Singer definition of a civil war:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) '
Is Iraq already in a undeclared state of civil war as Hussein Ali Kamal has said?
A minor point but it seems like an odd way of defining civil war? Why pick a fixed number of deaths? At the very least it ought to be expressed as a precentage of the population.

Tricam.
 
#4
tricam said:
castlereagh said:
Also if we take the Henderson - Singer definition of a civil war:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) '
Is Iraq already in a undeclared state of civil war as Hussein Ali Kamal has said?
A minor point but it seems like an odd way of defining civil war? Why pick a fixed number of deaths? At the very least it ought to be expressed as a precentage of the population.

Tricam.
Its an average figure that Henderson and Singer as I understand came up when collating the casualties of post colonial civil war conflicts. So of course, 1000 deaths mean different things depending on the countries population. Therefore, I guess it can be seen as a flaw in the definition. However the definition posted is from a larger definition (a book) that takes into account other factors such as there has to be multiple sovereignty in the state and that weaker forces have had to imposed 5% of its own casualties on its opponent's forces (forces have to be local residents).
 
#5
tricam said:
castlereagh said:
Also if we take the Henderson - Singer definition of a civil war:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) '
Is Iraq already in a undeclared state of civil war as Hussein Ali Kamal has said?
A minor point but it seems like an odd way of defining civil war? Why pick a fixed number of deaths? At the very least it ought to be expressed as a precentage of the population.

Tricam.
Also ties in with the Singer-Small Correlates of War Project, where they rather arbitrarity establish that 1,000 battlefield deaths is one of the major defining characteristics of a war. Therefore chaps, Op Corporate doesn't count. Go figure.

It has no legal standing, it's just a convenient criterion to establish the basis and scope of their research.
 
#6
Let's see when Saddam was in power butchering Kurds and Shia, who comprise 80% of the population, that was ok. But now that less than 20% of the population has opposed majority rule its a civil war ? The Sunni's are openly split. More are working with the government as they see a political solution as being better than the alternative. The die hards continue to attack the shia and seem to be attacking US forces less. US combat deaths are way down this year compared to the past which would mark this shift in terrorist strategy.
 
#7
tomahawk6 said:
Let's see when Saddam was in power butchering Kurds and Shia, who comprise 80% of the population, that was ok. But now that less than 20% of the population has opposed majority rule its a civil war ? The Sunni's are openly split. More are working with the government as they see a political solution as being better than the alternative. The die hards continue to attack the shia and seem to be attacking US forces less. US combat deaths are way down this year compared to the past which would mark this shift in terrorist strategy.
Not so long ago, the insurgents were essentially categorised as 'foreign fighters'. The very fact that the US is engaging in a debate as to whether this is, or is not, a civil war suggests that they are at last coming round to the fact that 'most' of the violence is, and always has been, Iraqi v Iraqi (i.e. civil war) or Iraqi v Coalition (anti-occupation). Only a relative handful of, but very media prominent, individuals were/are 'foreign'.

PS. Who said it was 'OK' for Saddam to 'butcher' Kurds and Shias?
PPS. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
#8
tomahawk6 said:
Let's see when Saddam was in power butchering Kurds and Shia, who comprise 80% of the population, that was ok. But now that less than 20% of the population has opposed majority rule its a civil war ? The Sunni's are openly split. More are working with the government as they see a political solution as being better than the alternative. The die hards continue to attack the shia and seem to be attacking US forces less. US combat deaths are way down this year compared to the past which would mark this shift in terrorist strategy.
There is inter confessional and inter ethnic bloodletting going on and it is all the fault of the Sunnis? A rather harsh view considering that one of the main complaints of the Sunnis is that the Ministry of the Interior controlled by hard line Shiites are sending out death squads against the Sunnis. Thought the invasion was supposed to stop government agencies from terrorising the civilian population.
Also what about places like Mosul and Kirkuk where non-Kurds don’t seem to be happy either with the actions of the Kurdish dominate forces, something about Kidnappings, killings and expulsions carried out by government agencies.
You also seem to forget that you don’t need to be a majority to start a civil war – you just have to make sure that some others join in! :roll:
 
#10
tomahawk6 said:
The following is a good read from strategypage. If the Sunni's stopped fighting it would all be over. AQ has demoted Zarqawi and an Iraqi Sunni now is in military command, hence the targeting of shia mosques instead of random street bombings that kill Sunni's as well as shia. I think that if the Sunni's dont stop fighting there wont be many of them left in Iraq.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20060410.aspx
It could be said that the removal of the Jordanian Zarqawi actually shows that the sunni insurgents are actually confident about their position in the Iraqi political sphere (maybe the Americans talking to them has increased their collective confidence) they want to be seen a cogent Iraqi (nationalist) political force.

I think that if the Sunni's dont stop fighting there wont be many of them left in Iraq.
:roll: Riiight, that happens there wont be anything left of Iraq.
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
I think that if the Sunni's dont stop fighting there wont be many of them left in Iraq.
Don't you just love the logic...

"We've got more bullets and bombs than you've got bodies. So we're going to win!"

How to win friends and enemies the american way! :wink:
 
#12
tomahawk6 said:
The following is a good read from strategypage.
A contradiction in terms.
 
#13
From Zee News

Riyadh, Apr 09: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said today that the violence in Iraq could only be described as a civil war and Arab states should try to bring Iraqis together to stop the strife.

"The definition of civil war is that the people (of a country) are fighting each other ... I don't know what we can call (what is happening) in Iraq except a civil war," he told reporters.
Strange (or maybe not) that two of America's closest arab allies have come out with similar statements (albeit with Saud Al Faisal not making the comments about the shiites being more loyal to Iran) telling reporters that it was essential that american troops should saty. Maybe its just a belief in the Colin Powell 'Pottery Barn Rule'?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top