Liberals can't decide if it's "insurgency" or "civil war"

Gil Smart loudly declares this week that Iraq is in "Civil War". He couldn't be more wrong. Even the UN knows that the latest rash of violence in Iraq is "terrorist attacks" and will only say that Iraq is "almost" in a "civil war-like situation".

I found it interesting that in the same article Gil referred to "the insurgency". Sometimes I wonder if it's just a word liberals use without really knowing what insurgency means.

an operation that aims to overthrow an existing regime, often using guerilla tactics.

An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles.

Do liberals realize that they are contradicting themselves? Clearly, fighting with IEDs is not a "conventional" battle. It's guerilla tactics.

An insurgency makes alot more sense than a civil war. Kurds, Sunni and Shia are found outside the country of Iraq and even in other continents in the case of the latter two.

How many Confederates from Mexico can you think of? How many Yankess do you remember in history class from Canada? It was an "American civil war" because it was all contained in one nation. Those "factions" were all located in one country.

In the past, we've heard about Iraq "foreign fighters" and those crossing the borders to engage in fights with the US occupation forces. Does Gil really think these foreign fighters packed up and left?