Civil war in Iraq?

There's an awful lot of hysteria about civil war or potential civil war in Iraq. Well, I'm not overly concerned. Why not? Three reasons.

1. Those who are actually in Iraq are saying it's not a big deal.

2. No one is defining the term "civil war" in such a way as to distinguish from the past three or four decades of Iraqi history.

3. A unified Iraq is not mandatory.

Let me elaborate on these...

1. Those who are actually in Iraq are saying it's not a big deal: Here's an example

Excerpt:

I'm trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.

I say:

There was some extra fear for a while there in parts of Baghdad. Various Iraqi bloggers reported it. But that was about it.

2. No one is defining the term "civil war" in such a way as to distinguish from the past three or four decades of Iraqi history: Let's look at the definition of "civil war."

Excerpt:

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: 'The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul' (Bill Powell).

3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.

4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.

I say:

Okay, which of these could conceivable apply to any situation in Iraq?

1. How do you define country in a way that both makes sense *and* applies to Iraq? A nation or state? Well, it's certainly a state, whether the terrorists like it or not. It has well defined, albeit very arbitrary, political boundaries. And there has been violent armed conflict, even genocidal armed conflict, within those borders almost as long as this nation has existed as such. So why worry about a civil war starting where there already is one, and has been for practically forever?

2. Well, there are some fallings out between al Queda and the former members of the regime. Is that a bad thing? For whom?

3. Well, Iraq is not part of the United States, so this one can't apply.

4. Nor is Iraq part of England, at least not at this time.

3. A unified Iraq is not mandatory: Everybody saying we've got to keep Iraq unified to avoid trouble in the future, and to teach these savages how to get along with those of other religions, or at least other denominations of Islam. Den Beste took this position.

I say a unified Iraq would be a nice bonus, but it's *not* mandatory. The Kurds and the Shia Arabs are able to come to agreement. that's four-fifths of Iraq right there. And the remaining fifth? These are the bastards that have kept Iraq in civil war (or whatever) lo these many decades! If they can learn to play nice, well and good. If not well... as Kos once said, screw `em.

What's the worst case scenario here? Four-fifths of Iraq are building themselves into a democratic nation. The remainder is suicide bombing and generally just acting out because their empire got taken away from them after they'd been abusing it. Kind of like Israel and the Palestinians. That's not great, but it's way better than anything this four-fifths of Iraq has ever experienced. And Israel's having good results with their wall. Wall up the Sunni Triangle and occupy it with Iraqi (Kurd and Shia Arab) troops. Problem, er, contained.

I'm a progressive, not a perfectionist. Real, solid progress in Iraq is good enough for me. Especially since so many odious people are upset over it.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)