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 12:36:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 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
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?
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.
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home