thanks tec: that had the core relation that i think we should consider using when posting information---which i had assumed would be obvious--but if not, this is better:
civil war is a "high intensity" phase of ongoing factional conflict over political power.
so iraq is clearly in a scenario along an imaginary gradient running from factional conflict to civil war that would have to be quite close to civil war.
at the same time, it is usually the case that these questions of typolgy are only resolved ex post facto. its easier when you know the outcomes to figure out what the beginning moment was of the process that explains those outcomes. in real time, particularly n real time for us, who continue getting access to heavily controlled information about what is happening in iraq (that a filter is in place for a long time--that we have become accustomed to the actions of a filter, does not make the filter any less itself)
whence such ambiguity as there is concerning the present situation(s).
so from this, we could rule out articles that do not link information to the broader context of factional conflict as irrelevant.
the more complicated implication:
since the bush squad finds itself acting as a faction within this scenario and not in a position to shape it (so it appears), then it may follow that ideological claims in support of the bush squad's actions should be considered pronouncements from a faction within the civil war-like scenario, and not intepretations of the scenario as a whole.....
it would seem only consistent to do this.
what do you think?
anyway, the below is interesting
Quote:
US envoy to Iraq: 'We have opened the Pandora's box'
· 80% of Americans think civil war likely
· Rumsfeld accuses Tehran of fomenting conflict
Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday March 8, 2006
The Guardian
The US ambassador to Baghdad conceded yesterday that the Iraq invasion had opened a Pandora's box of sectarian conflicts which could lead to a regional war and the rise of religious extremists who "would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".
Zalmay Khalilzad broke with the Bush administration's generally upbeat orthodoxy to present a stark profile of a volatile situation in danger of sliding into chaos.
Mr Khalilzad told the Los Angeles Times Iraq had been pulled back from the brink of civil war after the February 22 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra. However, another similar incident would leave Iraq "really vulnerable" to that happening, he said. "We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" He added that the best approach was to build bridges between religious and ethnic communities.
An opinion poll published by the Washington Post and ABC News yesterday suggested that most Americans agreed with Mr Khalilzad - with 80% saying civil war in Iraq was likely, and more than a third that it was very likely. More than half thought the US should start withdrawing its troops, although only one in six wanted all troops to be withdrawn immediately.
Hours after Mr Khalilzad made his remarks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld said: "They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq and we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment." Mr Khalilzad's intervention comes in a week when the two top US generals in Iraq, John Abizaid and George Casey, are in Washington talking to the Pentagon and the White House about how many troops they will need to maintain stability in Iraq. With his remarks, Mr Khalilzad may have been lobbying Washington to keep as many American soldiers there as possible. The Bush administration is anxious to reduce the US military presence for political and military reasons.
Mr Rumsfeld said sectarian violence had been exaggerated by the media. When asked how that squared with Mr Khalilzad's view, he replied: "Well, he's there. He's an expert. And he said what he said. I happen to have not read it, but I am not going to try to disagree with it."
Nevertheless, it was clear yesterday that the Pentagon was anxious to limit the impact of Mr Khalilzad's remarks. "If you take it from a year ago to now, month to month, the attacks now are down compared to last year," said General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
Mr Khalilzad suggested the situation was so dangerous that without a substantial US presence, a civil war could suck in other Arab countries on the side of the Sunnis and Iran on the side of the Shias, creating conditions for a regional conflict and disrupting global oil supplies. "That would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play," he said.
Last night Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, stepped up pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Mr Cheney told a meeting of the Israeli lobby group, Aipac, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Mr Rumsfeld said there were 132,000 US troops in Iraq. Plans were in place to shrink the presence to about 100,000. Downing Street said yesterday no "strict timetable" had been laid down for British troops to withdraw. A Foreign Office spokesman said: "I do not think we would be quite as gloomy as Pandora's box and civil war." But if there were further big sectarian attacks, things could get very difficult, he said.
Violence continued yesterday, with 16 killed and no sign of a coalition government being formed. Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister and compromise candidate of the Shia parties, said he would not be blackmailed into quitting.
A new video has been broadcast showing kidnapped British peace activist Norman Kember, 74, and two Canadian colleagues. The fourth, an American, was not shown. Bruce Kent, a friend of Mr Kember's, said: "My hopes have gone up considerably. I am very pleased that there is a picture of him only a week ago."
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1725996,00.html
mr khalizad is part of the inner orbit of the cheney-rumsfeld faction:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...lmay_Khalilzad
it seems pretty clear that the administration has already lost control of the signifier "civil war" which, despite their best efforts, fok feel they can use independently of what the bushpeople tell them. that must irk those fine fellows.
it is pretty clear that rumsfeld said yesterday what most bush loyalists would say, with as much effect:
rumsfeld: the media exaggerates.
response--but your boy in iraq said otherwise.
rumsfeld: o. well, i dont know then. the media exagerrates.
later, cheney threatens iran.
and this morning, iran threatens back.
yay.
it is also clear that, no matter what you choose to call this, the bush squad is debating how to respond----and the options are quite stark.
the author of the article makes a good case when he points out that khalilzad is arguing for what would amount to a wholesale repetition of the errors johnson and nixon made in vietnam--trying to withdraw through escalation in a context that the plitical and military types seem unable to comprehend, and that for political reasons--and this complete with the hoary old domino effect argument.
can you say fiasco?