According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “civil war” is “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.”
According to Wikipedia, “civil war” is “a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power.”
Some people try to explain the occurrence of civil wars stress the importance of change and transition. Some stress competition for resources and wealth, and economic and class factors.
Research shows that the most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Also it has to be noted that intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies.
But the conflict currently in Iraq is a proxy war. International forces, led by the U.S., England, and Australia, are bringing individual freedom and open elections. Radical Islam, from all over the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, wants a repressive dictatorial theocracy. The battle ground is Iraq.
Proxy wars were common in the Cold War, because the two nuclear-armed superpowers (the USSR and the US) did not wish to fight each other directly, since that would have run the risk of escalation to a nuclear war. Proxies were used in conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, Korea, Vietnam, and many other states.
And we’re seeing the same in Iraq today. Radical Islam is watching itself lose precious ground in Iraq. Once a favorite haven for terrorist training and protection, Iraq is now at a crossroads: will it remain under control of a military dictatorship, will it succumb to a radical theocracy, or will common folk be able to have an actual voice in their own land?
“This is not a clash between civilizations, it is a clash about civilization,” said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. “‘We’ is not the West. ‘We’ are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. ‘We’ are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.”
He also said, “The terrorists know that if they are to succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail and those countries become democracies and make progress, then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system but it is the most effective message against their wretched propaganda about America, the West and the rest of the world.”
The Leftist Media across the world loves to use the phrase “civil war”, an attempt to persuade outsiders that the new government in Iraq is unravelling and unable to govern. The Liberal Media wants to show the world that democracy cannot exist in the Middle East.
But this is not a civil war. This is not just people from within Iraq battling each other for control of their land. This is much bigger than that. If one, and just one, Arab democracy can flourish in the Middle East then the other Arab countries, the ones shackled in religious intolerance, and the ones chained by oppressive military regimes, will start to crumble. A free and democratic Iraq could easily be the “break in the dam” that has held the Middle East in the Dark Ages and not allowed it to mature into the 21st century.
Religious intolerance will no longer have a stable hold. Terrorism will no longer have a place to hide. Creating a free democracy in Iraq will be a true liberation of so many people that have, for so long, lived under repressive rule. The liberation of Iraq should be something all the free people of the Earth should celebrate.
And if Clinton were still President of the US the world would be cheering it.
1 response so far ↓
1 Jason Spalding // Mar 26, 2006 at 12:46 am
Cold War II — Back with a vengeance!
The war in Iraq is a critical blunder by State Department of the United States. The U.S.S.R. was before its break up was allied with Iran in its war against Iraq. Iraq at the time had the support of the State Department of the United States. You remember the Axiom the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So when the U.S.S.R. dissolved some in the state department that we no longer had to keep supporting Iraq. So Saddam stopped getting the due he was felt so he tried to conquer Kuwait. This pissed off to many in the world so the U.S.A. and the rest of the world stepped in and sent his soldiers packing back to Iraq. Now when Iraq became has become further destabilized the U.S. had to go in and insure the safety of our worlds needed oil supply. Flash forward till now and what is happening Iran wants to control its nuclear destiny and who is supporting them Russia a former member of the U.S.S.R. club. So the real question is Russia attempting a come back?