I’m glad to see you posting here, man. We haven’t seen you in a while. Do you still need pencils and hershey bars?

It is not so cut and dry, military doctrine and practice is quite tenuous, so simply put a civil war is a conflict between two opposing groups of citizens in the same recognized state. As there was one single solid state prior to the invasion, and now that state remains on the exterior, we do not have a civil war. Because the people who are doing the fighting, namely AIF, are not merely targeting the “recognized government”. Further, the interests that bring foreign fighters here, of which there are many, are not strictly political in base. This conflict is more closely related to an insurgency because there is a faction that is fighting to destabilize what little organization is here. The means to this destabilization is insurgent in nature because they cannot face us force on force. That is why they use guerilla tactics such as victim and command detonated devices. That is also why they use terror tactics. The tactics are guerilla in nature, but the rationale is not. In a straight out insurgency, the insurgent and the counter-insurgent are fighting for the backing of the people as well as a political goal. The many groups here have different goals, and believe it or not, the departure of occupation forces is not always at the top of all of the groups lists. Some groups look at extermination of other religous groups as a goal, or merely empowering their particular groups, some look at the restoration of the caliphate, and others still want the return of the Ba’athist movement. Because of this the conflict cannot be adequately described as an insurgency despite the fact that there are insurgent and counter-insurgent tactics being utilized presently. Aside from the “terror” targets, there are also cold and hot revolutionaries here. The cold revolutionaries are much more benign because they obviously don’t use force. Individuals such as Muqtada al Sadr has drifted back and forth between cold and hot on the outside, though I believe he has always been a violent threat. I remember I made the comment on these boards about 6 months ago that he needed to be eliminated, and Oliver stated that I was wrong because I would make Iraqi’s “hate” us even worse. Now we see that Al Sadr, (who openly engaged U.S. troops with the Mahdi Army) has gone from his “political” stance to saying that people should unite and engage coalition forces. So he has become a “hot”revolutionary once again. The bottom line is, Z Adura, that people are saying civil war because people other than American troops are being targeted. But as an Infantry Officer, a student of military and political science, and a leader of a Light Infantry Platoon, I feel that it is not so cut and dry. That is my opinion based on study and personal experience in some rough places. Whether that merits your objective consideration, or simply a scoff is totally up to you.

I am saying that, of those on the left who disrespect the military, the nature of that disrespect has changed. I don’t believe the number of people on the left who disrespect the military has changed much.

Where I might also disagree with you, is in reference to the fact that the left feels that the military requires micro – management.

To say, “Here is the end state that we are looking for” is respectful. It shows you have full faith and confidence in the people to whom you have assigned the job.

The example I used of Gen. Petraeus, is a case of disrespect, analogous to calling your children every few minutes, the first night you leave them “home alone”.

I don’t believe that the left has a lack or respect for the military per se, but I believe that the military has become too civilianized. I consider myself a left-leaning moderate. What makes me a little bit more conservative in a lot of areas is my military background. The common belief the left has is that the military should not only be under the control of the civilian sector, but it should be monitored every step of the way at every level. I think we are more efficient when someone says, “Here is the end state that we are looking for.” At that point the military can make a plan, move out and draw fire. The Right tends to become too entrenched in civil-military relationships, when the bottom line is that the military and the civilian world are meant to be seperate though the military ultimately answers to the civilian population. The bottom line is that we have too many folks in business suits trying to get into the Operations side of the house. This confict cannot be solved by experts wearing shirts and ties. The only subject matter experts are at the Company Level and Below…namely Army and Marine Infantry. This is where the local leader engagements, project scopes, and contracts are awarded, as well as where the real cost of the war is paid.

How else do you explain the rapidity with which Gen. Petraeus was being criticized within just weeks after his “Democratic majority Armed Services Committee” approval?

I am not sure why the smartass comment about me was necessary simply because I have a differing opinion, but I am not goint to travel down that road. In my opinion, a civil war would entail an established recognized government fighting a “rebellion” of established forces from within. What we have in Iraq are many splinter groups. The “sectarian” violence that we talk about is not force on force battles in the street, it is evil deeds inflicted because of tribal and religous reasons. More often than not, the targets are not carrying weapons, they are sleeping women and children. These groups such as the 1920′s Brigade, Mahdi Army, Jaysh Al Mahdi Militia, and Ansar al Islam make war every day. To label someone as “Al Quaeda” or AQI is about as easy as naming a street gang in Los Angeles. People piece themselves together give themselves a name and terrorize other people. I have studied the works of David Galula in order to understand the dynamic I am facing, but yet, the methodology, if there is any to speak of, does not fit that of a focused guerilla war. Incidentally my belief that it is not a civil war comes from my current occupation as a Platoon Leader of a rifle platoon that patrols an area that is currently undergoing a SHi’ite push to exterminate or otherwise displace the Sunni’s. My AO is not as popular on CNN as Anbar, but the Southwest has its own share of dangers…specifically the Iranian EFP and weapons flow. But, who am I to have an opinion on what is going on here. Certainly you must be the expert. I’ll defer to your wisdom….you have my email address, so by all means email me an OPPLAN or an OPORDER and I will implement it with my platoon and I’m sure we will start to see some progress.

Nice. I see what he did there. Mischaracterization, deflect and project. The bulwarks of the GOP.

Dkel, what would you call it, then? Labeling it a Civil War is only pertinent within the borders of Iraq, not the “GWoT” , obviously.

BTW, I think you have him wrong, but I don’t care

You’re a riot, Wellstone, a riot!

Dr.Pidgro: I doubt even you know what your comment means. Certainly, no one else does.