Maliki insists Iraq will not slide into civil war

[sabra]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-24T110333Z_01_L24367460_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml

Maliki insists Iraq will not slide into civil war

LONDON (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday his country will not slide into civil war, but acknowledged that mounting sectarian violence is now killing 100 civilians a day.

...

"There is a sectarian issue, but the political leaders ... are working on putting an end to the sectarian issue," Maliki told BBC radio. "Civil war will not happen to Iraq."

But even top Iraqi officials are already privately calling it just that. "If this is not civil war ... then I don't know what is," a senior government official told Reuters on Sunday.

Maliki confirmed U.N. data showing an average of 100 civilians a day were killed in May and June. Asked how long Iraq would need foreign troops, he said he expected improvements in Iraq's ability to police itself by the end of the year.

[gratuitous]

1. Of course Iraq won't "slide" into civil war

It's "plunged" or "charged headlong" into civil war. But "slide"? As if!

[babylonsister]

2. My thoughts exactly! No sliding, it;'s already there! nt

[VegasWolf]

3. Baghdad Bob, "I see no American tanks in Baghdad!" nt

[uppityperson]

6. maybe it is his brother.

[rodeodance]

4. Defeat is the most difficult thing to admit.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Gobsmacked...

at the naiveté that anyone of importance will believe him.

[donco6]

7. What's his definition of civil war?

from Wikipedia:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

Ultimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.


Not that wiki is the end-all of definitions, but I think this one is pretty good.

I have to add though - "conventional battles" - what is that? Have we had a "conventional" battle since WWII? In WWI a "conventional" battle was a massed charge between the two organized armies - it took them years to figure out that this technique had already died as an effective tactic with the advent of long range rifled artillery and automatic weapons. Perhaps our notion of "conventional" warfare is utterly obsolete and will never happen again. Some of these pundits who insist this is not "civil war" need to readjust their definitions.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Maliki is our new Baghdad Bob? eom