Pipe's definition of civil war may be too broad

Submitted by Andrew (United States), Aug 6, 2006 at 13:23

Looking at the definition of civil war, I think Pipe's definition is too broad. Just because there is ethnic and secetarian violence, does not mean civil war. That does not change the Pipe's analysis of the situation. However, it does become a civil war, that is a conflict over political goals, any of Iraq's neighbors may consider invading. See more on the definition of civil war below.

http://fsi.stanford.edu/news/civil_war_definition_transcends_politics_20060410/

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".