In March of 2007, the NIE claimed that Iraq, and the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiites
had elements of a civil war. The administration has been reluctant to parrot these words, in spite of the glaring obviousness of such a claim.
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Clearly, Iraq is immersed in a civil war.
Wikipedia defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group"....I'm curious, at what point would the objective observer justifiably call the conflict a genocide? (I use "objective observer" becasue I am not looking for the remaining 14 Bush apologists to simply go the denial route--I would like to know whether or not the term genocide can, will or ever could apropriately be applied to Iraq if the status quo is maintained).
Is it a matter of degree or severity? Does the death toll or body count have to exceed some arbitrary minimum? At what point does something become a genocide? Have the basic criteria been met in Iraq to even apply the term properly?