Something To Say-World

Something to Say-World blog is a forum where I can vent and share my strong viewpoints with the world, and get feedback from others, whether they are pro or con, for or against my positions. The main thing is that we engage in a thought provoking discussion with hopes of seeing the world in a more clearer and different light than we did before initiating our intellectual dialogues. __________ MOTTO:Committed To Relentless Pursuit Of Hidden Truths -Globally-

Thursday, November 30, 2006


(Photos: Google images)

In my August 23rd article, “IRAQ: CIVIL WAR OR NOT? You bet there is, as long as two opposing factions are fighting!,” I provided a definition for the terms civil war and faction. I stated that according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition, the term civil war is defined as “A war between [factions] or regions of one country.” And the term faction is defined as: “ 1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually a contentious, minority within a larger group. 2.Internal conflict; dissension; conflict within an organization or nation.” All three definitions apply to the on-going situation in Iraq. But for the sake of argument, we will stay focused on the literal definition of the term civil war and the second definition given for the word faction, respectively. And I standby my stated observation and position.

What is so unbelievable, is the fact that the Bush administration is still putting it’s blindfolded spin on what is actually taking place before all our eyes. It seems that the only persons in the entire world that don’t believe Iraq is in a state of civil war, are members of the Administration and some active duty military leaders. Just today, the Washington Post published an article stating that a U.S. military spokesman said he expects violence to escalate over the next few weeks in response to Thursday's bombings in Sadr City

The article stated:"The U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, told reporters Tuesday that he expects to see "elevated levels of violence" as a result of the car bombings that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City, a Shiite district in northeast Baghdad. The coordinated attacks set off a wave of retaliatory killings in Sunni neighborhoods. While [acknowledging] the sectarian conflict, Caldwell [stopped short] of characterizing it as a civil war. We don't see somebody competing for control of the country here at all," he said at a press briefing. "What we see is a country that's still functioning and still has duly elected representatives in charge who are able to give instructions and orders to their security forces." It is mind boggling to have the spokesman acknowledging there is a sectarian conflict, meaning more than one faction are fighting in opposition to the other, and on the other hand to publicly deny there is a civil war occurring.

The operative word or catch phrase is “We don’t see somebody [competing for control] here at all.” No where can I find in the meanings of civil war, neither explicitly nor implicitly, in any of my searches for a more comprehensive understanding, in which the given definition mentions or restricts usage to that of a faction or factions attempting to take control of a country. The Administration is deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the longstanding and generally accepted literal interpretation of the word civil war, to satisfy its own political face-saving objective of “staying the course.” Or “we can’t cut and run.”mantra. Clearly a “war between [factions-more than one]” is taking place. And has been for some time now; even before I wrote the aforementioned article on August 23rd.

Anyone that continues to push the irrational position of “staying the course or remain in Iraq” is not only insane, but completely irresponsible and in denial. Before long, the fighting sectarian factions that are waging war among themselves, just might stop and think: “why are we fighting each other, fellow Iraqis-brothers? Let’s go get the invaders and occupiers that are now maintaining a low profile within their sanctuary fortresses. And afterwards, we can resume from where we left off.” And then what, Mr President?

Clearly, The U.S. should not wait until the situation reaches “critical mass,” if it hasn’t already, before redeploying our servicemen and women out of harms way. To continue to procrastinate or simply delay, just might be too late to prevent slaughter of U.S. troops. Bottom line: The time has arrived to leave Iraq now, Mr President! You decide.

UPDATE: Associated press writer Lolita C. Baldor reported today that the bipartisan commission on Iraq
will urge a pullback of some U.S. troops in Iraq, but will not recommend a specific timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, an official familiar with the panel's deliberations said Thursday. Read rest of story-CLICK LINK.

Also read USATODAY's blog article pertaining to the civil war issue debate:


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home