The rumble seems to be growing louder by the week here in Washington, D.C. More and more political, military and international affairs analysts are saying civil war is already underway, or at least on the way, in Iraq.
Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds, they say, are girding themselves for a great battle for control of the country when and if coalition forces pull out. They are ready to shoot it out over old disputes, ethic rivalries, and the oil revenues that could make all of them, or perhaps only the winners, rich. What else can you call that, these analysts say, except civil war?
The White House, of course, sees it differently, and with reason. For starters, coalition troops, even while under constant fire, have in large part kept the various factions from massing large numbers of troops, gathering large quantities of big weapons, and launching broad offenses against each other, the hallmarks of a classic civil war.
In addition, there are political and security reasons to avoid any such admission. If full-scale, open civil war erupts and fractures the fledgling democracy, it will certainly be seen as a major defeat for the United States and Iraq would turn into a long-term staging ground for terrorism.
No matter what it is called, the situation is perilous for the U.S. military, for the Iraqis, for the future of the region. My question is this: Based on your reading of events, do you think Iraq is in a full-fledged civil war or is that term inappropriate?
