I mentioned my objection to considering the situation in Iraq as a "civil war" in a recent post.

There's no civil war in Iraq, contrary to the rock bottom assumption underlying the core proposition of Democrats wanting our troops out of Iraq. Michael Novak explains why in a concise but comprehensive post at NRO.

Here's how he starts:

Two false assertions are being made these days about the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq. The first is that they have been fighting one another for ages. The second is that they are currently waging civil war upon one another.

Novak refutes the first by pointing out something we experienced first hand in Iraq, that Sunni and Shia have lived together for many generations, which a good deal of intermarriage without controversy or conflict. He also rightly points out the supreme amount of statesmanship on the part of Shia leader Sistani, and the great restraint of Shia as a whole. He's quite right on both counts.

He also points out what is only too evident to those of us studying the dynamics of the various terror, tribal, and political factions involved: that Al Qaeda terrorists have been trying to foment a civil war, and have failed.

Here's how Novak ends:

Those who falsely call this a “civil war” in Iraq are conferring on al Qaeda a success that al Qaeda has not been able to bring about itself. They are puffing up a phony, contrived civil war far beyond the bounds of reality.

And of course, playing into the hands of our declared enemies, and helping them achieve in PR what they cannot achieve militarily, or through terror.

Labels: Iraq, war on terror