On March 19, 2003, President Bush announced that the liberation of Iraq had begun.

Three years later, after many Iraqis risked their lives to vote in several elections, a government is being formed that includes Iraqis from all different backgrounds, not only one party based on nepotism. Considering all that has happened during the last few years, it shouldn’t be a surprise that insurgents – both Iraqi citizens and foreigners – have entered the fight. That battling, though, doesn’t amount to civil war and, for those using the term, a history lesson is crucial.

Following World War II, it took years for elections to take place in Germany and Japan. In the interim, fighting continued by WWII rebels in both of those countries and, to this day, allied forces maintain a presence in both Japan and Germany.

What some are calling an Iraqi civil war is little more than an insurgency – no different from what followed every military victory that the United States has had over another nation.

The pessimists who can’t wait for the green light to use “civil war” instead of “sectarian violence” thought they struck pay dirt in February when terrorists blew up the golden-domed mosque in Samarra.

After that event, headlines around the world seemed to indicate that civil war wasn’t far behind. The Guardian Unlimited in the United Kingdom stated “Iraq slips towards civil war after attack on Shia shrine.” The Associated Press alerted news organizations about the possible civil war with headlines such as “Mosque Attack Pushes Iraq Toward Civil War” and went on to give civil war updates every cycle, such as “Update 32: Shrine Attack Brings Civil War Warning.” Unfortunately, there has been little solid reporting about what constitutes a civil war.

Whether you look at America’s own civil war or civil wars that have occurred in the former Soviet Union, Britain, France and even as far back as the Roman war between Caesar and Pompeii, there are certain commonalities all of these wars had and the conflict in Iraq does not.

To ignore the distinctive elements of history’s civil wars in order to use the term is disingenuous and unjustly redefines what a civil war actually is.

First, civil wars require at least some support in a minority segment of the population. During the American Civil War, Southern legislatures voted in favor of separation from the Union. In the former Soviet Union, there were open demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of people demanding a coup d’etat. Britain and France had wars between ruling families in which one eventually overthrew the other.

These factors don’t hold true in Iraq. Polling data is clear – Iraqis want to stay united.

Another missing element is an Iraqi personality to rally behind in order to know who will take over once a civil war is won. In America, everyone knew that Jefferson Davis would lead the Confederate States, and in Russia, Lenin would take power.

Who would lead Iraq? Jordanian born and Iraqi-hated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

Probably not.

Finally, one has to consider the tactics of the supposed civil war and the colossal failure that they’ve been. Supporter or not, in every past civil war it was certain combat was going on. This isn’t the case in Iraq. If the question has to be asked whether a nation is in civil war, then it probably isn’t.

It’s easy to be a terrorist, and most of the targets in Iraq have been the easy ones for killing civilians: markets or mosques. This slaughter is effortless – a civil war isn’t. Insurgents in Iraq haven’t been fighting a civil war – they have been attempting to start one, but have failed.

Iraqis have made it clear through their courage and their purple fingers that they are willing to sit down and work together to make their country more safe and secure. Moreover, the internal violence has been aimed at civilian populations, there is no leader in the wings waiting to take over, and, for the most part, the Iraqi people don’t support the insurgents.

The media and the pundit-activist sect will continue to push for using the term “civil war” to declare America’s mission in Iraq a failure, but they are wrong because the indicators for a civil war are absent.

Civil wars have a way of uniting a country and rallying those who want it to succeed – as it did in America – but there is never inquiry when one is happening.

Politicians and pundits are giving the public misleading information about the conflict in Iraq. Instead, they should recognize there is no civil war – just tragic killing of innocent people. This isn’t civil unrest – it is cowardly violence.

-Steve Yuhas is a homeland security graduate student.

-This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed – include your full name, major and year in school.