|
Monday, October 03, 2005 All In The Name You Give It A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country [+] or empire [+]. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political [+] struggle for national control of state power [+]. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion [+], ethnicity [+], or distribution of wealth [+]. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolution [+]s 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 history if and only if organised armies fight conventional battle [+]s. 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 organised armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution [+]. Courtesy of Web Menu Well, if it is going to be a question of semantics. No matter what the administration wants to call it, it is a hell of a mess. For me, it is a Civil War. . It has gone way beyond an insurection. It is not a revolution. The killings are basically between the competing religious or ethnic groups. Of course the invaders are a prime target. Still there are and will be far more Iraqi's murdered than American or British soldiers. So unneeded is this entire conquest, it was put together by the neocons who control the Bush administration. The excuse used was the security of this country from WMD's in the hands of a murderous dictator. Conveniently overlooked was the support given to Saddam Hussein by a past Republican administration. This support was of a ruler given to using poison gas against the Iranians and his own Kurdish subjects. It is interesting to note that the messenger in those days was the same man now running our DOD. He is the leader of the pack to conquer Iraq and through that exercise hegemony over the Middle East. It is doubtful that any of the cabal who created this exercise had any real knowledge of the Middle East and in particular of Iraq. I spent much time in this area, doing private commercial work and supplying information to the then Senator John F. Kennedy. In Iraq I knew sixteen people, including the King and the Prime Minister. Every friend except one, who was away, were assassinated when the Baathists took over in their coup , later referred to as a revolution. If I had kept to my schedule I would have been blown away with the rest of them. This experience alone gave me an insight in the violence and instability of the area. I am sure the neocons in Washington never had the benefit such a trip. We, the liberators, they told us, were to be welcomed with flowers and kisses as we overthrew the tyrant, protected a cultural heritage of greater antiquity than our own, and saw that the oil revenues would benefit the people instead of the gang in power. We were sold a bill of goods by some very slick snake oil purveyors. No excuse; any one with a curiousity to try to understand the region would have been alarmed by such intelligence. A little study of modern history would have created another platform of knowledge. Basically going back to WWI, the destruction of the Hajas Railroad was critical to the Allies in suppressing the power of the Turks. They were the eras "axis of evil" with Germany. Anyone who has seen the great film, Lawrence of Arabia, or read his book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom would have a cursory if romantic view of what was going on in those days. The actual sequel was really bad,however. We, the Allies, had promised to give the Arabs their independence. Of course, we did not keep that promise. Instead, like almost everything of the Versailles Treaty we laid the groundwork for our future problems. So the Turkish Empire was carved up and parcelled amongst the Allies. The area of Mesopotamia was turned into Iraq and a puppet government installed. Completely ignored by the Allied mapmakers were the religious and ethnic differences, including the certainty it would take a very strong central authority to keep all the indigenous tribes in harmony. The history of the Western interference in the Middle East has been one of overwhelming hubris. Lacking any real comprehension as to what we are dealing with, they have what we want and need, and we are going to get that oil, one way or the other. Now from an imperial fortress, called The Green Zone, we have taken the positions of overseers. We create a shell government, charging it to build their armed forces to protect themselves from themselves, to plunder their own establishment, and with such desperation for local youths that it is easy for them to be recruited as insurgents. Like the Romans at Carthage we destroy Falluja and Tal Afar. There is no exit strategy, there never was. We are there for the long haul. We are not the Answer. We are the Problem. And what is the proper name for the result? It is Civil War. |
ARTICLES
OF NOTE
Questions About HAIR Fury, Rage, Sadness, Embarrassed, Ashamed Answers for Simon "But I Can't Make A Difference" "God said it. I believe it. That settles it" Iran and US - At The Abyss Life's Too Short Eminent Domain Message From London ARCHIVES December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005
|
