So…it’s uncivil now…?

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

On another thread, a poster said that Iraq was “on the brink of a bloody civil war,” and I realized that I’ve been hearing that a lot lately. “On the brink of civil war.” “On the edge of civil war.” Lots of commentators have been saying that.

And it made me wonder: Is there a tipping point of some sort? Are we waiting for some type of official declaration? Because people of the same nationality are busy aggressively killing each other. What makes them NOT at civil war already? Do they need uniforms, flags, and a catchy anthem or something? Putting aside the notion that “civil war” is right up there with “jumbo shrimp” as an oxymoron (or “President Bush,” which is a plain old moron), at what point amidst the rapidly ascending body count, explosions, beheadings and murders, does someone say, “Okay, that’s it, they’ve jumped over the brink and it’s civil war.”

PAD

57 comments on “So…it’s uncivil now…?”

  1. Just my own personal opinion, in order for their to be an official “civil war”, you gotta have have the most widely-followed leader (or organization) on either side declare it. So until, for example, Sistani (the most influential Shi’ite), or the Association of Muslim Scholars (the most influential Sunni group) says “it’s on”, it’s not. But so far they’ve been calling for calm, and most of their followers have been listening. Unforunately it only takes a few knuckleheads to cause a major death toll.

    More on the role of the clerics here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301967.html?nav=rss_nation/special

  3. I think the American mainstream media is trying to go directly from “on the brink of” to speaking about it in the past tense. More wishful reporting, I guess.

  4. So, does mean Iraq is currently in a closed civil war? What does that me? A civil war for members only?

    Ugh. Let’s try this again:

    So, does THAT mean Iraq is currently in a closed civil war? What does that MEAN? A civil war for members only?

  5. Civil war isn’t an oxymoron. It’s civil as in “of cities” rather than “well mannered” (which itself derives from the unfounded assumption that people in cities have good manners). For it to be a civil war by the original meaning, it needs to be city against city within a nation, or coalitions of cities. Right now, you’d probably be hard pressed to find more than a few square blocks unified in anything like a faction.

  6. I was thinking of a civil war in terms of a conflict between two large, well-organized and well-defined groups within the same country. But after I saw PAD’s latest post I looked “war” up in the dictionary. Turns out something need not be organized or on a mass scale to meet the definition of “war.”

    Mea culpa. Iraq is indeed, by definition, in the midst of a civil war.

  7. civil war
    Function: noun
    : a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

    Still, I think we in the US expect national leaders to be openly involved in a true civil war.

  8. Posted by Mister Goodman at March 15, 2006 10:33 AM

    civil war
    Function: noun
    : a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

    Still, I think we in the US expect national leaders to be openly involved in a true civil war.

    ***************************************

    That’s how I was defining “war” when I wrote the post that PAD to which PAD referred. But my dictionary (it’s a big honkin’ Webster’s Unabridged edition, and I treasure it the way some people treasure a Porsche) defines it more broadly. I was therefore incorrect.

    I never meant to minimize what’s going in Iraq, by the way. The situation there is horrifying. I used the phrase “on the brink” because, as bad as things already are in Iraq, I believe they’re going to get a lot worse.

  10. So until, for example, Sistani (the most influential Shi’ite), or the Association of Muslim Scholars (the most influential Sunni group) says “it’s on”, it’s not.

    Great, now I have images of Randy Marsh arguing with with Sistani:

    Randy: I just came over to say, it’s not on.

    Sistani: Oh, it’s on!

    Randy: It’s not one, okay? I’m keeping my son home on Saturday.

  12. The Administration has set out their plans for withdrawal, with Rummy saying that it would be the Iraqi security forces dealing with things if open Civil war occurs. So, we’ll know that it’s full, open civil war when Bush starts pulling troops out, reminding us how, back in March, they said that the US would not get bogged down in dealing with the mass bloodshed a full civil war would entail.

    Never mind that the only reason those conditions exist are because of the US’ actions. Remember, when you question Bush, the terrorists win.

  14. The Administration has set out their plans for withdrawal, with Rummy saying that it would be the Iraqi security forces dealing with things if open Civil war occurs.

    Oh come on, Bobb! You can’t expect this administration to be held to things it’s actually said. Remember, the monkey didn’t mean to be taken seriously when he said he’d work towards steep cuts in our foreign oil consumption over the next ten years.

    Here’s how we’ll know it’s a civil war: When Condi says, “I don’t think anyone could have imagined that there would be a civil war.”

  15. Can it be a civil war if only one side is fighting? Maybe I’m just not reading the news stories closely enough, but I never get the idea that one faction bombs a crowded city market, then an opposing faction bombs a crowded mosque. It seems to me that it’s mostly the same side doing all the fighting.

  16. Okay…guys…I really do know the contextual meaning of “civil.” Just as I know that “shrimp” also means a type of fish in addition to being little and, for that matter, that “intelligence” has several meanings so that “military intelligence” also isn’t automatically a contradiction in terms. What makes the term “civil war” amusing is that it unites two words, one of which has a meaning drenched in courtesy and manners. It evokes images of guys in tuxedos shooting only to wound and promptly offering copious apologies.

    So could people, y’know, stop explaining to me the actual derivation of the term?

    PAD

  17. Posted by Peter David at March 15, 2006 01:54 PM

    So could people, y’know, stop explaining to me the actual derivation of the term?

    **************************************

    People may feel free to explain things like that to me, though. I couldn’t even get the definition of the word “war” quite right. And I have a big honkin’ dictionary just a few feet away from my PC, so I have no excuse. 🙁

    I’d love to say that I’m in good company, knowing that the news media has done the same thing. But that doesn’t make me feel any better. I was a local reporter in my hometown; I’ve seen the sausage being made, and it is not a pretty sight.

  18. Can it be a civil war if only one side is fighting? Maybe I’m just not reading the news stories closely enough, but I never get the idea that one faction bombs a crowded city market, then an opposing faction bombs a crowded mosque. It seems to me that it’s mostly the same side doing all the fighting.

    Nope, it’s bith sides doing the fighting:

    “Police found 29 bodies, their hands bound and gunshot wounds in their heads, on the eastern side of the capital in a Shiite neighborhood.

    “Fifteen bodies also were found Tuesday morning in a truck in a Sunni neighborhood in western Baghdad, police said. The victims were all males between the ages of 25 and 40 who had been strangled, authorities said.”

    In other news: So much for the professional áššhølë being able to shake things up at the UN.

  19. It seems to me that it’s mostly the same side doing all the fighting.

    At this point, I think it’s pretty safe to say that some of these attacks are retaliatory based on the factions rather than some presumed insurgency or Al Qaeda influence.

    Start with the bombing of the Shiite mosque, and now people on both sides are being murdered by the dozens.

    Even worse? It’s some of these police and military we’re relying on to provide security there that are doing these killings.

  21. I think you could call what’s happening in Iraq a civil war but it would require you to stretch the usual definition of the term. Wikipedia defines it as a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power…An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

    It’s debatable whether or not Al Qaeda can be considered an organized Iraqi faction (given that much of its leadership, such as Zarqawi, is foreign) and it’s also debatable that their tactics constitute attacking other factions. Blowing up a car bomb on a crowded street with no assurance that you will kill more of your opponents than supporters seems a poor way to fight a civil war.

    Those who are strictly fighting the US soldiers are clearly not engaged in a civil war. Those who are randomly blowing up Iraqi citizens are terrorists. The ones who blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra were clearly attempting to foment civil war. The reaction from the average Iraqi citizen was not the violence expected (in fact, one headline claimed that deaths of US soldiers has dropped since some in the media declared the civil war had begun).

    One could argue that the situation is analogous to that of the post civil war South–it is said by some that tens of thousands were killed by the KKK and related groups in the aftermath of the war–should we extend the dates of the Civil War to include the Klan’s reign of terror?

    I would not consider the situation in Iraq a true civil war yet. When and if many march in the street to support Al Qaeda or, as result of the situation, organized armies of Kurds and Sunnis and Shiites are massacring each other, that will be another thing entirely. I wish I thought that more unlikely.

  24. Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 15, 2006 03:55 PM

    I think you could call what’s happening in Iraq a civil war but it would require you to stretch the usual definition of the term.

    ***************************************

    Bill, thank you for chiming in! I guess I wasn’t so far off the mark after all in stating that Iraq was “on the verge” of a civil war.

    On the other hand, whether or not what’s happening in Iraq meets the definition of a “civil war,” it is a terribly dangerous situation. The body count that’s piling up as a result of these terrorist attacks is bad enough. But if these attacks lead to Iraq’s various factions coming at each other en masse, I think the resulting carnage will make the current body count look minor by comparison.

    I also worry about the ripple effect such a war could have throughout the area. Saddam was a grade-A bášŧárd and I am ashamed that the U.S. provided him support in the past. But the mutual enmity between Iraq’s Baathist government under Saddam and Iran’s radical Islamic government (enmity that was helped along by Saddam’s aggression toward Iran, of course) kept both countries somewhat in check (at least until Iraq invaded Kuwait). Iraq has descended into sectarian violence. If that violence becomes an all-out civil war, Lord only knows what will happen in the aftermath. It’s bad enough to have a radical Islamic government in Iran; if Iraq goes that way as well, I think it’s going to be very bad juju for all.

  25. I guess in the end, whether the current situation in Iraq is officially a civil war comes down to a matter of semantics and we could probably debate that all week.

    From the media reports, it does look like violence between the shiite and sunni factions is increasing, which likely means we are headed in that direction if we aren’t already there.

    This is going to be a real problem for the administration because there doesn’t appear to be anyway that they can blame this on Clinton getting a bløwjøb.

  26. It’s debatable whether or not Al Qaeda can be considered an organized Iraqi faction

    Umm. Who ever said Al Qaeda was being considered a faction?

    Civil war in Iraq = Shiites and Sunnis fighting, something they’ve done for centuries.

    These guys don’t need an Al Qaeda to help get the ball rolling with the violence.

  27. Craig, I think only a very small fraction of the deaths in Iraq can be directly traced to Sunni/Shiite fighting. Indeed, given the enmity between the two it’s surprising there hasn’t been more violence. A lot of people in Iraq have family members who were killed by the predominantly Sunni government of Saddam and I expected there to be a lot more vengeance in the war’s aftermath than has so far come about.

    But the mutual enmity between Iraq’s Baathist government under Saddam and Iran’s radical Islamic government (enmity that was helped along by Saddam’s aggression toward Iran, of course) kept both countries somewhat in check (at least until Iraq invaded Kuwait).

    That’s true to an extent, Bill, but we can’t forget the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988 which left an estimated 1.7 million dead. The problem with Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent is that occasionally someone will try it out. Since the world seems prepared to accept a nuclear Iran I don’t know that having a mortal enemy on their border is a great strategic move. But a good solution eludes me.

  28. “This is going to be a real problem for the administration because there doesn’t appear to be anyway that they can blame this on Clinton getting a bløwjøb.”

    Just watch them.

    Someone here did a brilliant job of “being” Karl Rove explaining why the current administration’s problems were Clinton’s fault. I’m sure this would be no challenge at all.

    PAD

  30. If Clinton hadn’t been busy getting bløw jøbš, he could’ve gone chasing after non-existent weapons of mass destruction, thus saving this administration the trouble.

  31. Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 15, 2006 05:06 PM

    That’s true to an extent, Bill, but we can’t forget the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988 which left an estimated 1.7 million dead. The problem with Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent is that occasionally someone will try it out. Since the world seems prepared to accept a nuclear Iran I don’t know that having a mortal enemy on their border is a great strategic move. But a good solution eludes me.

    *************************************

    Very good point, and I should have been more clear in what I wrote. I was thinking that the conflict between Iran and Iraq kept them “busy,” giving them far fewer resources to direct towards aggression against others. But that kind of “balance” is precarious, at best. And any benefits are far outweighed by the human suffering that results.

    A good solution to a nuclear Iran seems to be eluding everyone right now. There’s a columnist for the New York Times who traveled to Iran and wrote about it (I forget his name!). Prior to the Iraq war, he believed there was a window within which we could have engaged Iran with a carrot-and-stick approach. Our leverage, he believed, would have been the attitudes of Iranians, who largely distrust their government and are (or at least were) more pro-American than one would expect, or than their government will let on.

    The problem is that these selfsame pro-American Iranians would, in this columnist’s estimation (it’s killin’ me that I can’t remember his name and I don’t have time to look it up right now!) based on his experience with them, circle the wagons and turn very anti-American if we tried strongarm tactics with their government. He felt the best approach would be to lure their government to deal with us through incentives of aid and trade, and in the process “corrupt” Iranian culture with the seeds of our Western ideals.

    Anyway, with violence in Iraq continuing to escalate, and our involvement there leaving us without any credible “stick” to go along with a “carrot” for Iran, it seems that window to influence that country, if it ever existed, has closed.

  32. Craig, I think only a very small fraction of the deaths in Iraq can be directly traced to Sunni/Shiite fighting.

    And yet, do any of these recent deaths, which now toll in the hundreds, strike you as being Al Qaeda’s “style” (for lack of a better word)?

    These are people being rounded up and executed by the dozens. Not car bombings and the occassional kidnapping that Al Qaeda has done there.

    Besides, the belief (well, for many people) has been that the actual number of Al Qaeda members in Iraq is small and spread out.

    If the car bombings and kidnappings had continued without these execution-style mass murders occuring, I might be inclined to agree with you, Bill.

    But I think the piles of bodies that are adding up point directly to civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.

  33. I’d say that a lot of people, and most ‘news’ organizations, won’t call if war until there is open combat in the streets on a regular basis.

  34. at what point amidst the rapidly ascending body count, explosions, beheadings and murders, does someone say, “Okay, that’s it, they’ve jumped over the brink and it’s civil war.”

    You know, it makes a great deal of difference when you have friends actually over there to talk to. In my emails from Iraq soldiers, it is clear that this is not yet a civil war. Yes, there is no question it has gotten much more messy. But what you have right now is closer to a gang war in New York city with lots of people caught in the middle. They may be partial to a side, but it is not a civil war.

    The first definition in Webster for “civil” is “a: of or relating to citizens b: of or relating to the state or its citizenry.” Since the general public in Iraq has not (yet) taken up sides, which in part is because there is not yet a strong rival government around which to rally, it really has not yet become a civil war.

    Bottom line, it is not yet a civil war. That does not mean it is a good situation, but neither is it truly all out war.

    One more opinion: While some of you think Bush is an idiot, etc., the reality is the current state of affairs is a reflection on small groups in Iraq making a power grab and not really a reation to our involvement. Obviously our removal of Saddam opened the door to this. But if you read recent media stories, it is clear that Saddam was so worried about this happening in the first place he never really did what was necessary to stop our invasion. While I hoped for a more peaceful outcome than this, the reality is this could easily have happened anyways. Our being there gives us more of an influence that would otherwise be true.

    Iowa Jim

  35. I thought Civil War was a comic mini being written by Mark Miller. Shows how much I know.

  36. What they need is another set of cartoons so they can fight their common enemy again.

    Neil

  37. “One more opinion: While some of you think Bush is an idiot, etc., the reality is the current state of affairs is a reflection on small groups in Iraq making a power grab and not really a reation to our involvement. Obviously our removal of Saddam opened the door to this. But if you read recent media stories, it is clear that Saddam was so worried about this happening in the first place he never really did what was necessary to stop our invasion. While I hoped for a more peaceful outcome than this, the reality is this could easily have happened anyways. Our being there gives us more of an influence that would otherwise be true. “

    Yes Bush is an idiot. He was told before he invaded that this was a very real probability if we didn’t have hundred of thousands of troops to keep the peace. The new book, “Cobra II” says that military officers on the ground warned of this and wanted to secure the Sunni areas but were over-ruled by General Franks and Rumsfeld.
    This unrest was obvious and preventable and it was this Administration’s incompetence that is the reason we are on the “brink”.

  38. the reality is the current state of affairs is a reflection on small groups in Iraq making a power grab and not really a reation to our involvement

    Bûllšhìŧ. The current state of affairs is because we toppled a stable government while having no plans for what would come next.

    ==================

    the reality is this could easily have happened anyways.

    So? could does not equal would have. Even if it was inevitable, we still didn’t need to accelerate it, let alone put our troops in the middle of it.

  39. The Iraqi Parliment briefly met today. So there may still be a functioning Iraqi Government. I think if any of the main groups quit the Government and announce their opposition, then we have a full Civil War. And it is why we are now on the brink or edge or cusp.

  40. One more opinion: While some of you think Bush is an idiot, etc., the reality is the current state of affairs is a reflection on small groups in Iraq making a power grab and not really a reation to our involvement.

    Sorry, but this is a nonsensical statement. The groups are making a power grab precisely BECAUSE of our involvement–a major impediment to that power grab was removed because of our invasion. And the reality is that Bush is an idiot because he didn’t take seriously any notion that this could occur and made no contingency plans for this set of events.

    A civil war may have been inevitable, but it is entirely to the discredit of the Bush administration that they planned so poorly and did not take this outcome as a serious, plausible chain of events.

  41. I have to disagree with you, Bill. We have an incredible stick to threaten Iran with. If you don’t do what we say, not only will we bomb the Shi’ite out of you when we invade, but when we’re done with you, your country will be so f’ed-up, you’ll be reduced to anarchy and civil war. If that’s not a threat, I don’t know what is.

  42. The current state of affairs is because we toppled a stable government while having no plans for what would come next.

    Which in the end, no matter the monkey’s apologists try to spin it, makes this entire situation our fault. We broke it, we bought it. It’s that simple.

  43. “I have to disagree with you, Bill. We have an incredible stick to threaten Iran with. If you don’t do what we say, not only will we bomb the Shi’ite out of you when we invade, but when we’re done with you, your country will be so f’ed-up, you’ll be reduced to anarchy and civil war. If that’s not a threat, I don’t know what is.”

    And what army would we use to invade and occupy Iran?

  45. Originally broadcast on Al Jazeera of all places …

    My impression of Al Jazeera is that it’s a lot more liberal than most people give it credit for (not to mention that it has enourmously more respect and credibility in the Middle East than any US or European agency). Methinks it should be given a little more respect in the US than it has now….

  48. I just listened to Bush’s weekly radio broadcast. He said that ” the terrorists made Iraq the central front in the war on terror.” Anyone else see the flaw in this reasoning? The terrorists didn’t make Iraq the central front, Mr. President. You did.

  49. I think the whole Middle East has been in a Civil War for hundreds of centuries. Iraq is just the latest chapter. The cultures and history of that part of the world is written both in blood and from past wars that archelogists have discovered.

  50. Most of you guys could care less about Iraq. You just want any excuse to bad mouth the President because it makes you feel better for some reason.

    It almost makes me want a Democrat in office so you guys can take a breather. On second thought, it’s much better if we keep having a Republican President so you guys have something constructive to complain about. What would you do with your time if you had everything that you wanted?

Comments are closed.