old europe wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:My quibble with the term Civil War is that it seems to imply that it's too late to stop a full-blown Civil War.
Yeah? Weird perception. It's a bit like saying "Well, he has only murdered 4 victims by now. We can still stop him from becoming a
serial killer".
Yes... very much like that. He who murders four people isn't necessarily a
serial killer. Murder -> Mass murder-> Genocide: are all degrees of the same thing. I don't think there is a definitional transition point, so we're left with our own interpretations. Civil unrest-> Insurgency-> Civil War: Same thing
where exactly should the line be drawn?
The film that set me on this rant said the most reputable source claims 35,000 violent deaths in 3 years. That's about 12,000 murders a year or 1000 per month. This matches it's claim of a 36 person a day average and I think that's a fair enough estimate for discussion. That puts the prevalence of homicide at roughly 48 Persons per 100,000 annually. For reference sake; According to numbers at the W.H.O., approximately 8 per 100,000 is the Global average. The United States is pretty bad at 6 per 100,000. Columbia is still world champion at 63 Persons out of 100,000 (and that's just counting convictions
) To my knowledge; Columbia is not considered to be in a Civil War. An interesting note: The city Washington D.C. rivals Columbia's numbers.
Now at 6 times the Global average for murder, Iraq is certainly a cesspool of violence, but I don't think that rises to the level of a Civil War.
old europe wrote: In relation to the population, if there were 35,000 Americans dying every month due to sectarian violence, would you be inclined to call that a civil war, or would the number sound insufficient for labelling it such?
Using the same numbers above; a fair comparison would be 12,000 monthly
or a murder rate of 48 per 100,000. No, I don't think it would be safe to assume that a Civil War would have to be taking place to achieve such horrific numbers. We've got a lot of violent A-holes here and a shitload of guns, so a depression might just accomplish that. Our last Civil War saw a death prevalence of 500 per 100,000 average per year
and that was very, very modest compared places like Rwanda where it was more than 20 times higher.
Consider that Iraq's death toll would have to increase 200 times to match Rwanda's horror and even that would be counting Rwanda's 100 day number as the whole year.
And these people were mostly armed with machetes.
old Europe wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:I tend to think of a Civil War as one with clearly defined sides; and entire populations being forced to choose a side or run for their lives. An organization if you will, where people are forced to overtly declare "for or against" status in the face of clearly identifiable would-be authorities of sort. Be it a uniform or an armband; something other than shadow attacks by an insurgency. While that day may well be coming; I don't see Iraq as having passed that threshold yet.
Interesting concept of a civil war. Of course, that would mean that all guerilla wars cannot be really called "civil wars" (think El Salvador, Peru or Colombia). Neither would the Balkans war be called a "civil war", where more than 80 ethnic groups were involved in one or the other way.
I don't believe ALL guerilla wars rise to the level of "civil wars"
at least not by my definition. But here too; you will notice that most guerillas adorn some form of insignia that elevates their stature.
old Europe wrote: Contrary to you, I tend to think of a civil war as something very much in terms of what happened in the Balkans: where people who had been peacefully living as neighbours for decades suddenly started killing each other because the other one didn't have the right religion or didn't belong to the right ethnic group. No uniforms. No armbands. A lot of shooting grenades at "enemy" villages. Lots of guerilla attacks, too. Death squads. Ethnic cleansing. Rape. Mass murder.
I see how you could get your ideas from looking at the Civil War time uniforms in the Smithsonian, but I don't think of that as the contemporary form of a civil war.
You are wrong. A
typical civil war will see opposing sides formed in military and paramilitary and will at least have some form of insignia to help them distinguish friend from foe. A terrorist or freedom fighter (depending on your perspective) will of course hide his allegiance or lack thereof initially, as well as for strategic attacks, but when Civil War breaks out in earnest; insignia becomes a matter of pride and a symbol of allegiance. Google pictures of various resistance groups to see what I mean. Distinguishing features are practically mandatory in a Civil War, how else could you determine friend from foe? I can't imagine that it's any easier to tell Hutu from a Tutsi, or a Sunni from a Shia than it would have been a Yankee from a Rebel. In a full-blown conflict;
some form of uniformity works to the mutual benefit of everyone involved. Now I'm not suggesting there can't be vast quantities of unmarked rebel volunteers; but the guy giving the orders will usually be distinguishable.
