You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« High brow meets low brow | Main | Quick Links » December 14, 2006A Civil DiscussionIs Iraq undergoing a civil war? This question has become a litmus test in public discourse, and one's answer determines whether one is a member of the so-called "reality-based community" or a shill for the Bush Administration. This is not an unreasonable standard, but I feel compelled to rise to a level of double-contrarianism by asking, "What's a civil war?" This is exactly the question answered by military historians John Keegan and Bartle Bull in their recent article for Prospect Magazine ($, er £): There are three principal defining aspects of a civil war, each with numerous subsidiary requirements. The basic formula is simple: the violence must be "civil," it must be "war," and its aim must be either the exercise or the acquisition of national authority.The authors then conclude that the current struggle within Iraq fulfills only the first criterion*, so no, it is not, in a technical sense, a civil war. But how useful is this technical sense? The authors even admit that under this definition there have been "only five clear-cut cases: the English (1642-49), the American (1861-65), the Russian (1918-21), the Spanish (1936-39) and the Lebanese (1975-90)." A greater flexibility seems necessary: The looser definition of the "war" part of civil war nonetheless acknowledges that if factions or regions are killing enough people for enough time, it can be petty not to recognise the conflict as something very like a war.And this lets the Administration and its apologists off lightly. But even making such an allowance for the disorganized manner of the civil violence, I think it is important to stress the most striking reason why the term "civil war" fails: Could Iraq be the first civil war ever without battles, generals, explicit war aims, the use of partisan public rhetoric by civilian leaders, mass public participation and targets of a predominantly military nature? Even if Iraq today possessed these characteristics, it would still lack something even more important: the struggle for authority.This is probably lost on most casual observers of the terrorism in Iraq, as it's not always clear who is doing the fighting or to what end. Keegan and Bull list seven main factions: "pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, and two major Kurdish mini-governments." What do they want? "Revenge, criminality, ideology and political advantage, but [apart from the state forces] not sole authority over the state." It is our grave misfortune such causes are non-negotiable, and calls for a political solution concurrent to a military victory are that much more fantastic: Objectively, it must be concluded that the disorders in Iraq do not constitute a civil war but are nearer to a politico-military struggle for power. Such struggles in Muslim countries defy resolution because Islam is irreconcilably divided over the issue of the succession to Muhammad. It might be said that Islam is in a permanent state of civil war . . . since neither Shia nor Sunni communities can concede legitimacy to their opponents.Even though most public figures are referring only to the level of violence in Iraq when they say "civil war," a deeper examination of the term reveals an uncomfortable complexity. Like so much of public discourse, the debate is too shallow to be useful. * The hawks nevertheless push for a complete shutout by pinning the violence on meddling foreign jihadis. Posted by Zach Wendling at December 14, 2006 08:40 PM CommentsDo civil wars typically have more than two sides? At the very least this one has three: 1. Iraqi government/US-led Coalition forces Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at December 15, 2006 12:04 AM | permalink Could Iraq be the first civil war ever without battles, generals, explicit war aims, the use of partisan public rhetoric by civilian leaders, mass public participation and targets of a predominantly military nature? I'll only note that, by this definition (and others presented), the United States is not at "war, " either (and never was in the contemporary context). Yet everyone from the media to the administration has insisted on calling whatever it is that we've been doing as the "Iraq War" or "War in Iraq." Posted by: Gregory Travis at December 15, 2006 08:12 AM | permalink Greg makes a good point, US troops are not there fighting a war, we are there propping up our creation, the Allawi gov't, which would collapse in a nanosecond were we to ever leave. But it is certainly war. While Sunni insurgents wage armed conflict against Shia militias in an attempt to complete their encirclement of Baghdad, Shia militias battle each other for control of the city of Baghdad. These battles, and others like them taking place all over the rest of Iraq, are mainly about one thing: the acquisition of power, or at least a seat at the table. Sunnis see themselves as being forced out of the power structure by the Shia majority, and Shia battles Shia for the bigger slice of pie. But "civil" war? Here's a definition of civil war from Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer's, Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92: "Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." fatalities that the insurgents sustain." I suspect Mr Keegan's technical point may be there are no "central government forces" for insurgents to battle, so hence we have the term "sectarian violence." But no matter. At one point, calling what was happening in Iraq "civil war" was a big deal because polls showed Americans' support for our Iraq efforts completely collapsing if that's what was happening over there. But since Americans' support for our Iraq efforts has now completely collapsed anyway, I guess the point is moot. Except to war historians. Posted by: JohnS at December 15, 2006 04:20 PM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|