Can we finally agree to be civil? At least about a definition? The obscenity is finally recognized, even as further reality slouches ahead.
Why did it take so long for the media to use the term civil war? The answer says a lot about the relationship ...

They all have gradiose visions of a new type of society - remember the caliphate? Or sharia law? Or, for some, a modernist secular state? Or independence for their region? They all want to define the future of Iraq, and are fighting for the power to implement their vision.

Sorry, I think it really silly to try and find semantical reasons to deny the obvious - this is an internal war within a society for control of that society's destiny. A civil war.

Huh? You have any doubt that, if a winner emerges, they would govern?

The American Civil War was really only that in hindsight because the Union won and thus was able to make the contention that the Confederate States of America was a rebellion rather than a war for independence.

The American Civil War--or, as they say in the South, "The War of Northern Agression"--had international involvement similar to the Lebanese case. The British were supporting the Confederacy through their Canadian territories and the Trent Affair nearly resulted in the Brits going into a fighting war against the Union.

They actually had troops prepared to make preemptive strikes in northern New York and Vermont. John MacDonald--who would later become the first Prime MInister of Canada--was head of the Canadian Militia and put nearly 100,000 troops on the northern flank of the US.

These British actions had dramatic impacts on the southern front, as Union resources had to be allocated with the threat of a northern invasion a real possiblity.

The American Civil War was really only that in hindsight because the Union won and thus was able to make the contention that the Confederate States of America was a rebellion rather than a war for independence. Still, with the hindsight of knowing how it came out, we can see that we have two distinct, uniformed military forces from "the same country" fighting for the right to determine the political future of the two/one polity/ies.

That there is a vague jihadist movement that would like to extend Islamist rule throughout the region, if not the world, is not really good evidence of a civil war. Indeed, it would seem to point to an international conflict that happens to have its main fighting taking place in a single state.

The Confederacy never sought dominion over all of North America. The Russian Whites, as Anderson points out, were never a unified opposition.

Here's my challenge: 1. Explain how, in your and Keegan's formulation, the Lebanese Civil War was a civil war. 2. Explain how the current strife in Iraq differs from the situation in Lebanon from, say, 1975-1985.

In Lebanon you had multiple factions, many of whom had no plausible chance of siezing the entire country. You probably remember the classic Jeff McNally cartoon. In Lebanon you had foreign militaries on the ground exerting direct control and working through proxies (Israel and Syria). In Lebanon much of the violence was against civilians at the neighborhood level. Much of it was hard to ascribe to classic military strategy (e.g. sniping civilians on their way to the market). In Lebanon you had suicide bombers and other terror tactics employed by most sides. You had a nominal "legitimate democratic government" with nearly complete control over its own office complexes and not much else, but with army and police forces that allegedly served the country as a whole.

We called this a civil war at the time. Either Keegan requires us to retroactively rename it, which literally revisionist history, or he and you needs to find a distinction between the parameters of Lebanon's situation then and Iraq's situation now which I confess is not remotely obvious to me.

Civil war most certainly involves two factions within one nation… but does not involve so many outside agents.

So the Condor Legion and the International Brigade didn't mean anything in the Spanish Civil War?

An artificial definition. In the Russian civil war, there was no such single entity, which is one reason why the Whites lost.

Keegan has been going downhill lately, & this latest isn't changing my mind about that. How he thinks the Sunnis aren't seeking sovereignty ... that's just bizarre.

Warlords trying to maintain de facto control of their area of operations don't qualify. Otherwise, we'd consider the various narco-terrorists in Colombia and elsewhere to be engaged in a civil war. Instead, we say they are merely engaged in criminal violence. They are, as Hitchens describes them, "forces of nihilism" rather than would-be sovereigns.

whether we call it “civil war” or “chaos” it remains a bloody mess and perhaps an intractable one.

"Failed state" probably best describes the situation.

Unlike most failed states that decend into chaotic anarchy through protracted civil wars, Bush has actually single-handedly created a failed state in Iraq.

It would actually be preferable for Bush, politically, to start calling the failed state of Iraq as being emeshed in a civil war. Civil Wars have belligerents who can be negotiated with, whereas failed states are essentially anarchistic.

In Iraq, however, there is no shadow government waiting to take over the reigns of power.

Oh really? You know this how?

Sadr is out there providing services on the street, like a mafia don. The Salafists are enforcing edicts in the towns they control. There have been repeated rumors of planned neobaathist coups. I'm completely unconvinced that the various factions don't have ambitions to become "the government" of all or as much of Iraq as they can control. You and Keegan seem to be confusing means and end. It's like you're seeing what each faction can manage so far and taking it for all they think they can ever manage.

What's pretty obvious is that the Sunni and Shiite maximalists are pouring great big piles of money into their efforts. None of us are privy to their strategy sessions, but the sensible assumption is that they expect all that money to buy them something pretty major.