Maliki: What Civil War?

In London on Monday, Iraq's prime minister al-Maliki said there is no civil war in Iraq, nor is it 'sliding' into one.

Sure, an average of 100 innocent people are dying every day in sectarian-fueled violence, but to call it a 'civil war'? Nope. That's not what it is at all. Right?

Well, what exactly is a civil war and who gets to decide when the term applies?

Here's one definition:

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.

So, why the hesitation to call what's happening in Iraq a civil war?

Via the BBC:

When does sectarian violence become civil war? That question is being posed almost daily in the face of the steady deterioration of the security situation in Iraq since the election at the end of last year.

The question is not just a matter of definition.

If the problem is sectarian violence then there is still hope that if a broadly-based government can be agreed, then it might get a grip on the situation.

Coalition troops working with the local Iraqi forces could help bring the country back to a semblance of order, helping to keep the peace between the rival communities.

But if it is really a civil war then there is no possibility that such a government will be formed. The police and armed forces will be seen as the partial instruments of the Shia majority and will soon become just one militia among many.

The coalition forces might as well give up and go home.

So, if you name it 'sectarian violence', there's still hope. If you call it a 'civil war', there isn't. That's a bit too simplistic for me.

Or, maybe, it's just an 'undeclared civil war'? Or, is Iraq still 'on the brink'? (Sidebar: CNN's banner regarding the war between Israel and Lebanon states they're just 'on the brink' too, despite the fact that its war correspondents use the word 'war' all the time.) Just how long does a country stay on that brink and who decides when it has fallen off it? Nobody seems to know, really. Because no matter how many leaders, politicians, reporters, officials, armies or whoever call it 'war', there will always be those who hesitate to call it what it really is.

War is war. Ongoing sectarian violence in a country is civil war. Just how many more months or years must we play games with semantics? What exactly does that solve?

It seems, in Maliki's case, he is reluctant to acknowledge the presence of a civil war in Iraq because many coalition members have already stated that they will no longer stay in the country in an atmosphere of civil war - leaving Iraq to deal with its own internal affairs and everyone knows their military is unprepared to handle that situation. So, while politicians may be busy trying to make the situation there seem more palatable, enabling US troops and others to remain in country by denying the presence of a civil war, the truth is clear: there is a civil war going on in Iraq. Don't let any politicians tell you any differently.