A reason to believe Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how
So what's the truth? The principle in determining truth should be to apply the factual indicator test. A civil war is a visible event whose indicators includes the insubordination of armed units, mass refugee flows, the rise of rival governments, etc. The test is whether those events are being observed. What famous individuals say about a situation is a shortcut for encapsulating a factual assessment; it describes reality as public figures see it but is not the reality itself. That remains a mystery until developments unfold. One interesting indicator of how the US military sees the situation are its plans to turn over large parts of the country to Iraqi forces.
Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil
War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an
indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a
"civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the
insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American
fiasco. It was Zarqawi and his cohorts themselves who changed the terms of
reference from fighting US forces to sparking a 'civil war'. With any luck,
they'll lose that campaign too.
Now, if the medea loses their campaign. Like Vietnam, we can win everywhere but at home.
Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how