Virtually every modern civil war has had outside powers involved. From the soviets and germans in the spanish civil war, to the americans and sandinistas in the El Salvadoran civil war, to Israel, Syria and Iraq in the Lebanese civil war.
Also, ever heard of the international black market for arms? Warring factions are not neccessarily totally dependent on Nation-state allies for armaments.
No amount of hilarious spinning and tapdancing is going to enable you to sell the proposition that outside influence negates the fact that Iraq is a civil war.
You are citing examples of generic civil war, which is often aided by outside forces. That is not my argument or point. A generic civil war is one which has two clearly defined factions, at war internally. They may very will be aided by outside sources. Is this what kind of "civil war" is being waged in Iraq? If so, who are the insurgents outside sources? Why should the insurgents gain benefit from outside sources, while Iraqi's have to fend for themselves, without our assistance?
You want to make two different arguments, and they don't jibe. First, you want to say that what is happening in Iraq, is mostly Iraqi's, no outside influence, yet when confronted with the issue of how the insurgents are able to gain reinforcement and replenish their arsenals, you admit their are outside influences at play. If this were truly an internal conflict, the demise would be inevitable, because the insurgents lack the infrastructure to replenish.
If this so-called "Civil War" were two internal factions fighting for power, that would be a generic civil war, and we could say that one side is being supported and funded by Syria and Iran, while the other side is being funded by the US. If this is the case, what is the rationale for shirking our responsibilities to stand with our allies in Iraq, against a foreign enemy?
