« Previous · Home · Next »
I Don't Need Your Civil War
By John
Washington, DC's quaint and amusing local paper on the Iraqi ground sit:
The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war.
Negative, Ghostrider. Dan Bryan and Kenneth Pollack need to check aim before they fire, because we've got a long way to go before anyone can wave the checkered flag on the "civil war" debate.
A civil war would constitute a major faction of the Iraqi demographic, represented in Parliament, withdrawing from the government, declaring independence, and defending that independence through the force of arms. That hasn't happened.
In-fighting does not equal civil war. If so, we would have called Shay's Rebellion the First American Civil War. Localized, secretarian violence isn't a civil war, it's a mob war. Civil Wars are fought at all three levels of warfare, strategic, operational, and tactical. Iraq is being fought almost exclusively at the tactical level.
That sure to hell doesn't put the fork in any argument, nor does it make Iraq one step up from Balkan-esque violence.
Of course, the day I take military advice from WaPo columnists is the day Hell hosts an ice cream social.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/423
Comments
This may be a ridiculously stupid question (I hope you'll forgive a civvie his ignorance), but what exactly is the difference between Tactical, Strategic, and Operational? I have the most basic idea, but it'd be nice to get a clearer explanation.
Thanks guys! Keep up the good work.
- B
But "Civil War" makes much better headlines than "Sectarian Violence". Plus the MSM has to declare anything the Bush administration is involved in a failure before November elections.
(Although that "secretarian violence" you mentioned could get nasty. Sorry, I usually ignore typos since I can't type at all, but the mental picture on that one was funny.)
I agree. I like the use of Shay's Rebellion. Our beginnings were not too pretty either. And that was after WE fought for 5 years to earn the right. I also believe to qualify as a civil war both participants have to be of the same country. I believe we will find those instigating these outburst are foreign insurgents.
A civil war usually implies factions fighting for power by shooting at each other. This rarely happens in Iraq because all of these factions are too weak to attempt combat with anyone who can shoot back. What is happening is that the various factions are concentrating on killing the non combatants of the other side. Besides being a war crime and a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has to be one of the most cowardly form of warfare in recent history. It certainly implies a strategy based on bigotry and genocide instead of your normal fight for power.
This debate about "civil war" or not is pointless. We're arguing semantics. It doesn't change what we have to do or the situation on the ground.
the war in Iraq is 90% political, 10% military Andy.
Language is important.
Maybe it is inside the beltway and the 24/7 news cycle, but not from where I sit.
Language is important, this debate is not.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I'll take your word...
John,
My main point is that it's rather futile to have this extended debate on whether we are in a civil war or not since everyone seems to have a definition that fits their own bias and conforms to how they see the war in Iraq. So ultimately it has no effect on events in Iraq and is a distraction from solving the real issues.
My comment about the beltway and 24/7 news cycle was in response to your previous comment that "the war in Iraq is 90% political, 10% military". What I meant to indicate is that the war may appear to be 90% political from inside the beltway or on the 24/7 news channels, and the blogosphere for that matter, it's certainly not political from my perspective and I would guess the perspective of our comrades fighting in Iraq and elsewhere. While certainly there is a political dimension to this war, I doubt it's anywhere near 90%.
I hope that's clearer.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
best comment ever, Geoff.
Usually when someone says "the debate is over" they would have trouble winning said debate.
"Why Men Rebel" by Ted Robert Gurr, would be an excelent read for all involved in this discussion. Give it a shot.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
Delicately put as always John.