A Civil Debate Over "Civil War"

Various pundits are now debating whether Iraq has fallen into a state of "civil war", arguing in the process over various definitions of the term.

We like the definition in our 30 year old Merrian-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:

CIVIL WAR: WAR BETWEEN GEOGRAPHICAL SECTIONS OR POLITICAL FACTIONS OF THE SAME NATION.

That's a pretty useful general definition. We guess the only issue we have under this definition is whether the fighting between different geographical sections (Sunni north versus Shi'ite south) and different political factions (Sunni ba'athists, Sadr militia, other Shi'ite militias) amounts to a "war."

Among the definitions of war in our dictionary is this: "open armed conflict between . . . factions within the same country."

We'd say that conflict between armed Sunni insurgents and armed Shi'ite militias killing about 100 people a day constitutes open armed conflict.

So, for better or worse, it's pretty clear that Iraq is, and has been for some time, in a state of civil war.

Of course, the fact that some parts of the country are relatively free of conflict and fairly stable on a day-to-day basis doesn't change the fundamental conclusion. During the American civil war there was never any fighting north of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, meaning that for the entire war the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Delaware--to name just a few--saw no fighting (other than an occasional draft riot). Even in the South there was little conflict outside Virginia and a few coastal outposts for the first couple of years.

So, the fact that Kurdish territory, or majority Shi'ite cities like Basra have seen little of the carnage afflicting the rest of the country hardly means there's no civil war. Quite the contrary. The Kurds have reportedly built up a standing militia of nearly 100,000 troops to defend their territory if it becomes necessary.

Nor does the fact that a lot of the mayhem in Iraq is perpetrated by criminal gangs change the conclusion that Iraq is in a state of civil war. Criminals almost alway take advantage of civil strife and breakdowns in societal order to ply their trade. Civil wars are almost always accompanied by criminal activity in war torn regions. And, it appears that much of the criminal activity in Iraq is actually aligned with various militias to help fund their operations.

The problem for American forces is that we're stuck in a civil war that we accidentally caused (although it was clearly foreseeable), with no real policy or strategy other than, in a sense, to tamp down the war and curb more extreme fighting. All that accomplishes, however, is to let the embers of war burn ever more brightly just below the surface.

We're also stuck with a war strategist--our President--who refuses to concede reality, who made blunder after blunder in getting us into the war and prosecuting it, and who appears uniquely unqualified to get us out of it.

Unless we're willing to enter the war on one side--not a real option--we ought to largely withdraw. Yes, there will be chaos, but eventually the Iraqis will settle their differences, both militarily and politically. (Look at Viet Nam.) We should maintain a sufficient force to prevent overt meddling by any other local military force (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey).

The sooner we go, however, the sooner the Iraqis will be able to resolve their problems.