The journalists are battling over what to call the situation in Iraq. Is it a "civil war?" Or, is it a "sectarian violence?" Even within the Chicago Tribune apparently the reporters are wrestling with what to call that war. What do you think?

Now, I am not trying to have a political discussion here.

The "tribes" in the Middle East have been fighting for millennia and the efforts of the "Western world" to stop this have been complete failures for nearly as long.

There was a fascinating programee on the Beeb yesterday about Saladin's conquest of the Crusader fort at Jacob's Crossing, on the Jordan - which led to the eventual loss of the entire region to the Muslims.

What was really interesting was a coincidence of dates. Around a thousand years after Christ, the Crusaders, armed with the latest high-tech weapons, captured Jerusalem and slaughtered all its Muslim inhabitants (most of whom were civilians). Jerusalem remained under Christian control until Saladin (and his local "insurgent" forces) recaptured it and then under Muslim control for about another thousand years.

Now, two thousand years after Christ and a thousand years after the Crusades, does anyone spot any contemporary parallels?

Of course, this was a word question. Just what is the definition of civil war? Politics or not, I think I'd not call this a civil war. I think of a civil war as being started within the country (as with the U.S. Civil War), even though other countries might help out once it's started. This is not the case in Iraq. Sectarian violence does seem more appropriate to me. I could be persuaded otherwise, though.

Here is the original article. However, Rosenthal's discussion was only political, not linguistic, in nature.

kalleh--It's a good question. I have wondered too if "insurgent" isn't a euphemism

War is defined at dictionary.com as "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Remember when Vietnam used to be called a "conflict"? In the military commendation letters produced here by state legislators, our drafters are reminded never to refer to a soldier's contributions there as having been part of a "conflict," but rather as having been service in a "war," because minimalizing it in that way is offensive (no pun intended). Aside from that, dictionary.com's definition seems too narrow, to me. What about the "war between the sexes"?

The Bush administration is very careful not to refer to the situation in Iraq as a civil war (which literally means a war between the city (states)). The are three major groups (and areas) within the modern state of Iraq (which was created by the British post-WW1 out off the old Ottoman Empire). One division is along ethnico-linguistic lines (Kurds vs Arabs (Sunni and Shi'a), another along religious ones (Shi'a Arabs and Sunni Arabs and Kurds). There's probably also a good dose of modern secularism vs fundamental religious thrown in between urban and rural areas.

Somewhere in recent News I saw reference to the World Marbles Championships near Crawley in West Sussex, England April 14, 2006.

Is that near Partridge Green?

As children, did you guys play with marbles?

In my home town every boy had a pasteboard box containing marbles under his bed. We called them "doogies" (mid-America dialect). All mothers forbade all boys to "play for keeps," and all boys violated that rule.

The World Marbles Championship is held annually at Tinsley Green, which is only just in Sussex - quite near to Gatwick Airport. In fact, it is marginally nearer to where I used to live, in Reigate, than it is to Partridge Green.

You can find out about the championship[s here http://www.marblemuseum.org/tinsley/tinsleygreen.html

When I was a schoolboy I occasionally played marbles but usually lost and I don't suppose I've rolled a marble for half a century. Neither have I ever felt the desire to visit the championship at Tinsley Green, notwithstanding that there are some decent pubs in the vicinity.

Back to Kalleh's question: CIVIL war? A bit oxymoronic. As has been stated above, internecine war is a part of Arabic culture. We sublimate that tendency in our part of the world with football. The US politicians blundered into that bellicose, unsublimated part of the world without a clue as to what they were doing, or to whom, and, IMHO, are still pretty much clueless. That leaves me thinking that the question of whether it's "insurrection," "civil war," sectarian violence," or all of the above is utterly moot. Please note that the US generals - those who went to West Point and studied history, are the ones condemning the present mess.