Civil War? What Civil War? Cole in Salon
Readers have repeatedly asked me for a criterion by which we might fairly objectively decide if Iraq is in a Civil War (contrary to Bush's and Rumsfeld's denials). I have attempted such an argument at Salon.com. Excerpt:
' That there should be a political controversy over whether there is a civil war in Iraq is a tribute to the Bush administration's Orwellian attention to political rhetoric. By the most widely accepted social science measure, Iraq is incontestably in a civil war.
J. David Singer and his collaborators at the University of Michigan (where I also teach) have studied dozens of such conflicts and have offered a thorough and widely adopted definition of civil war. It is:
"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." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) '
Read the rest.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/23/2006 06:36:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
18 Comments:
Being mindful of the political mainstream’s propensity to blame the pathologies of the “Arab street” for so many of the region’s problems, its worth stressing the role of the US-UK occupation in the current violence. Iraqi academic Sami Ramadaniwrote in the Guardian last month that civil war will be “not a war of Arabs against Kurds or Sunnis against Shias, [but] rather a war between a US-backed minority (of all sects and nationalities) against the majority of the Iraqi people”.
The International Crisis Group’s recent report into the insurgency pointed out that resistance groups go to great lengths to portray themselves as fighting against the occupation and its Iraqi “collaborators”, with even the most extreme groups denouncing or at least distancing themselves from sectarian attacks on civilians (if only for PR purposes). Popular sympathy is crucial to the insurgents, and the report shows the extraordinary lengths they go to in order to secure and maintain that sympathy. Their assessment of the population’s view of sectarian violence (i.e. that it’s a big vote-loser) is, if accurate, encouraging in respect of the possibility of deepening sectarian strife. It also bears out Ramadani’s point, which shold be the central consideration for us here in the West - to recognise the decisive role of our occupation, not in solving Iraq’s problems, but in exacerbating them.
David Wearing
London, UK
www.democratsdiary.co.uk
Juan,
Civil war is terrible for all. However the real nightmare for Bush, Rummy, et al. would be if the Shias and Sunnis ever decided to unite to form one grand insurgency to drive us out.
The reason they have to keep denying there is a civil war is because it goes against all their rhetoric they have been trying to feed the American people for years. For instance, that all people want to be free, that they want democracy, that we are doing the right thing to spread peace in the Middle East. So, if it didn't work, then what do they say? This is an administration that can NEVER be wrong!
By the way, I was watching Star Wars III last night and saw a great line in that movie that applied to this Bush administration and its policies. It is when the evil Emperor gives his speech to the Senate. Padme says, "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." That is how I feel every time Bush gives another one of his speeches and the audience applauses to his ridiculous delusions. As far as I am concerned, HE is the one with the dangerous idealogy he keeps warning us about in terrorists.
Your Salon article does not seem to mention the SCIRI, the Badr Brigades, the Mahdi Army, Muqtada al Sadr, or Al Hakim. Are they agents of civil war or peace? Aren't they the biggest factor in Iraq's prognosis?
Muqtada seems altogether contradictory. He public pleas for peace and unity, yet calls for Shia to arm and protect themselves. He endorses armed resistance against the occupation, yet complains when the US says it will not let US troops be the human shields to buffer warring Iraqi factions. He also seems to be a theocratic zealot with a world view like that of Iran's AAhmadinejad, or the obverse of a Pat Robertson. Yet Nir Rosen sees him as Iraq's last best hope.
The semantic issue of whether Iraq is in civil war or not is much less interesting than the question of how to achive a settlement. Specifically, is Muqtada the best bet, the worst nightmare, or an absolute wild card? Were you National Security Advisor to W (or Kerry or Nader), would you pick him as the our Diem, Chang, D'Aubuisson, Kolchak, Tito, or Khomeni to lead the way out of the bloody tunnel?
A tidy exit might be nice. But how much violence against other factions should be allowed against the recalcitrant Sunnis? Should we be prepared to wink and nod if, to consolidate order, the Muqtada faction needs unleash the militias to pacify or "cleanse" a few towns and neighborhoods?
The real credit goes to the Bush administration for changing the issue from whether there is civil war in Iraq, from whether the situation there is simply anarchy.
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7
anarchy
n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Anarchy \An"arch*y\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. anarchie. See Anarch.]
1. Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.
Spread anarchy and terror all around. --Cowper.
2. Hence, confusion or disorder, in general.
There being then . . . an anarchy, as I may term it, in authors and their reckoning of years. --Fuller.
Great article, Juan.
Something I find confusing re: civil war in Iraq, is to what extent the attacks between various interal groups are surrogates for attacks against the well-barricaded American forces.
In other words, to what extent is the "civil war" an expression of "anti-US-occupation"? Regardless of internal rivalries and bitterness, I believe there is probably a deeper animosity against the Americans than against one another. Would you and other readers agree with this point of view?
If the US and other forces left, would the attacks between various Iraqi groups subside, or has it gone too far for that to make a difference? It looks increasingly inevitable that internal power struggles will involve violence and not peaceful dialogue, but I would love to be proved wrong.
March Madness: Civil War At Duke University
There is no great secret about why Bush is so eager to deny that Iraq is in a state of civil war. He knows only too well that the moment Americans come to believe that Iraq is in a civil war, virtually all support for Bush's war of choice will end. As the Washington Post reported nine months ago, Bush's domestic political spin on the war is guided by the work of two Duke University political scientists, Peter D. Feaver and Christopher F. Gelpi, who have examined public opinion on Iraq and previous conflicts. They argue that the U.S. public will only support wars if it believes the mission will succeed. Public support for the Iraq war has faltered because the American people cannot see progress toward a well defined goal and toward success. If Iraq really has fallen into civil war, there is obviously little hope for victory, and Americans are not going to want to go on spending $60 billion a year on a failed enterprise.
Richard Eichenberg,Tufts "Public Opinion on Iraq"
3. Americans don't like to intervene militarily in civil wars. This is one of the most consistent findings in my own research about public opinion, and it confirms the findings of many others, most prominently Bruce Jentleson [Duke University Political Scientist], but also Eric Larson at the Rand Corporation.
See also "Portending Polls" Bruce Jentleson
And their Bball team not too shabby either Juan.
It's no surprise that the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge civil war in Iraq. I believe it was Bush who stated that the coalition troops would not get involved in an Iraqi civil war because that's not what their mission is. Therefore, the Iraqi troops would be expected to be in charge of dealing with their own war and we all know they are far from being ready to protect their country.
I am not convinced that a U.S. withdrawal will lead to a civil war, and let me provide here some comments I have previously made on a blog run by an American soldier in Iraq -
The major Iraqi militia (about half dozen Sunni, three Shia and two Kurdish) will have to hammer out a compromise once they understand that no great power is around to do the heavy lifting (this is also John Murtha's argument).
Fighting with IEDs, RPGs and small arms in an urban setting is particularly bloody (as soldiers well know), and the sheer rate of attrition will force the militias to negotiate within a few months.
In fact, my suggestion is that the U.S. should be working hard RIGHT NOW to get some regional moneybags, like the Saudis, to organize a retreat in Taif (as they did to end the Lebanese civil war) and throw millions of dollars at all these militia leaders to get them to sit down and hash out a compromise deal.
Lebanon, a country of 16 different faiths, and more than 20 major militias, was able to reach an uneasy compromise and end its civil war. There is no reason why Iraq can not do the same AFTER the major foreign powers withdraw from active combat.
As long as foreign powers remain in Iraq and provide high-tech mechanized infantry, armored cavalry and air warfare capabilities, the militia tacitly allied to the U.S. have no reason to stop expanding their regions of influence and control, and the militia opposed to the U.S. have no choice but to keep fighting and surviving this expansion.
Also, as long as the U.S. is in Iraq, it is acting as a recruiter for various elements seeking to build Arab-nationalist and Islamist militia. These in-and-out militias are using Iraq as a short-term training base (much like Lebanon), and the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the greater will be the number of recruits in such militia who get live training in Iraq, get some combat experience under their belt, and then move out into other countries – the same training model was used by global socialist/nationalist militias in Lebanon., and many Islamist militias in Afghanistan.
Under U.S. occupation, Iraq is not a haven for terrorists – it is more like a graduate school, with the U.S.-led occupation acting as guinea pigs for terror recruits to hone their kill skills.
And believe me, I know a thing or two about graduate schools.
whats wrong with muqtada telling people to arm themselves. If you were a shia living in say Samarra, wouldnt YOU want to protect yourself?
I have to say though for once i have to agree with bush. Its not yet a civil war, and while the politicians are at the table theres still hope. Its when Adnan Dulaimi or muqtada sadr tell their followers to start killing that we will be in civil war.
Great piece, and what an appropriate mention to those Duke profs. I had forgotten about that story.
It should also be mentioned that sever years before Gettysburg there was bleeding Kansas.
Bombarding Fort Sumter was mostly a political act, a natural (albeit stupid and wrong) follow up to declared secession.
Even with Napoleonic tactics the typical form of martial engagement, the American Civil War started as a violent confrontation of militias and partisans -- not the Grand Army of the Potomac against Robert E. Lee.
Your Salon article offers interesting food for thought. In particularly the definition of what is a civil war.
I'd go a step further and add that any occupation de facto creates the conditions of a civil war, provided the invader has enough power to hold the country for a while and the invaded country manage to keep enough forces to resist somewhat. Then inevitably, a split occurs between those in the country who think better to collaborate with the invader and those who resist. The resistance emerged relatively slowly in Iraq and seemed very weak at the beginning, but approximately six months after the invasion, the US was already loosing quite a number of troops. Using and abusing of the old divide and rule law, the US has greatly contributed to increase ethnic tensions. The bombing of the mosquee in Samara looks like a turning point, adding an other dimension to the conflict, that of ethnic tensions. That kind of conflicts are easy to ignite, but much harder to cool down. We all see how this conflict is detrimental to the Iraqi. But in the end, it will also be detrimental to the US : their super powerfull army which costs millions won't even be able to win on a small and weak state like Iraq ?? who will she impress after that ? Further, after Guantanamo and Abu Graib, not even the sacred principles are left over..
Abhinav Aima said... I am not convinced that a U.S. withdrawal will lead to a civil war
Juan Cole made it as clear as possible that we already have a civil war situation in Iraq.
In fact, my suggestion is that the U.S. should be working hard RIGHT NOW to get some regional moneybags, like the Saudis, to organize a retreat in Taif (as they did to end the Lebanese civil war) and throw millions of dollars at all these militia leaders to get them to sit down and hash out a compromise deal.
Another thing I love about this article is that it provides clear analysis of the situation, but no Road Map to peace #10001. Neocons making reasonable steps in the ME? This sounds like a joke :-(
Lebanon, a country of 16 different faiths, and more than 20 major militias, was able to reach an uneasy compromise and end its civil war. There is no reason why Iraq can not do the same AFTER the major foreign powers withdraw from active combat.
IMO, you forget about Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/afghan.christian.ap/index.html
I am curious at to why supposedly "Moderate" Muslim clerics would want a man to die for converting to Christianity? How can the West ever even relate to the kinds of people who would do this? Does the American government kill people based upon their religion?
Also, an interesting view point from a man inside of Saddam's inner circle:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/sr=8-1/qid=1143055818/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5306056-2138541?%5Fencoding=UTF8
A direct account, actually seen on the Daily Show ironically, from a man who claims to have witnessed WMDs in Iraq transfered to other countries.
some links dealing with the same subject :
Nur al Cubicle has a translation of Pierre Jean Luizard interview with Le Monde. Luizard, an historian, has specialized in the recent history of arab countries and the Middle East. Nur hold a regular and remarkable blog, translating for the English speaking what appears in the best newspapers of France and Italy. I always wonder why her blog doesn't attract more attention, because these European newspapers offers a different view on the events succeeding in Middle East. They are generally more critic of the actions of the Bush government than are the NYT or the WP in the US.
Khaled Mamdouh an editor of Islam On Line also offers an arab perspective on the developement of sectarianism in Iraq.
Response to comments by InPlainView:
Yes, Taif agreement for Lebanon included a clause for Syrian troop presence, and more importantly it also involved a Syrian-Iranian agreement on Lebanon, which was crucial in ending the Syrian-backed Amal war against Palestinian, and the inter-Shiite Amal-Hizbollah clashes...
I believe that the Bush administration will have to decide on its next move fairly soon and I suspect they are holding back on their decision till after the 2006 elections... The choices seem fairly straight-forward:
1. Do nothing new: Stay put in Iraq and hope the insurgency dies down as the political process moves forward and the Iraqi forces step up.
2. Widen scope of conflict to Syria and Iran: This is an obvious step for the Likud-PNAC neoconmen who envision a spread of U.S.-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Elements of this plan would have to include military action against Iran's nuclear program along with military action against Shiite militia in Iraq. There would also have to be considerable movement in the support for the Syrian opposition against the Assad regime.
3. About turn: Have a Taif type agreement that brings in Syria and Iran (as it did in Lebanon's case) and agree to a cease fire with well-defined Red Lines that can not be crossed by any militia.
Given the Bushiite penchant for the use of military force, Option 3 seems the least likely.
I know that many readers here are averse to suggestions for conflict resolution, but that is exactly why the neoconmen get away with claiming that there is no alternative to the Bushiite plan.
George Bush won't recognize the situation in Iraq as a "Civil War" until someone starts shelling Ft. Sumter.
Of the seventeen comments, not counting mine here, it seems quite the rule that the commenter fills in gaps in her understanding with a novelist's flair. It reminds me of a professor who was running a congressional race for someone, and he told me people work for campaigns because they're nobodies who want to feel like somebody.
If people get involved in foreign policy analysis to "act out", maybe that explains why foreign policy is such a mess. You start with the five million who think the rapture of the Second Coming requires a Zionist government in Palestine, or the President who, according to Scott Ritter (who's been there, and who doesn't waste a word on self-justification), is trying to prove he's tougher than his old man--those are my terms, not Ritter's. It does seem to me that we can, if we try, sift our own and other people's comments for this kind of overwrought prognostication.
The gist of the civil war debate is that we're wondering if we should revoke the President's emergency powers, since he doesn't seem to be making things better by their use. The reason we put this in euphemistic terms of whether a civil war is happening is that the President has emergency powers we're not ready to defy. So the generalized acting out here is of our belief that we can take a timeout from democracy and then resume it when things quiet down. We test for the arrival of that event by sloppily throwing out wild and impractical analyses and suggestions. If no one quickly agrees, we decide it's not safe for democracy yet. We're ground hogs in our own myth of the coming of spring. We get the government we deserve. We've had it like that for years, or generations. Maybe this crisis will prove to more of us that citizenship is not a part-time job, much less a hobby. Ask an Iraqi.
Post a Comment
<< Home