The meaning of civil war, and political and military developments in Iraq
With the advent of the three year ‘anniversary’ of the liberation of Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the common headline has switched from an indomitable insurgency to impending civil war, if not an existing civil war. Richard Hernandez looks at the issue in detail, and postulates “the shift of meme from the “insurgency” to a “civil war” is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco.” We believe there is merit to this argument.
While the term ‘civil war’ is thrown around with little thought of the meaning it communicates, there has been little effort to define exactly what a civil war is. The definition supplied by Wikipedia highlights the reasons for some of the confusion in the usage of the term, as there are two schools of thought on this subject, and the definition is quite vague:
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. 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). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.
The United States Committee for a Free Lebanon provides the Complete List of Terrorist and Insurgency Groups Worldwide. Based on this list, and the latter definition from Wikipedia (prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not)), Spain, France, Greece, the United States, India and a host of nations throughout the world are in a ‘civil war’. India alone has twenty-nine insurgent groups, many of which are actively carrying out violent campaigns within its borders. Yet there is little talk of civil war in India. The violence in India takes thousands of lives each year, yet is characterized as sectarian, insurgency or terrorism related.
We argue the definition of civil war is far too broad, as armed conflict within a state is not the sole indicator of civil war. Key indicators of a civil war would include the breakdown of the political process and an unwillingness of the opposing parties to negotiate, the factionalization of the military and security institutions, and open warfare between the various parties. It is for these reasons we provided the indicators of a civil war in Iraq after the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
So far, we have seen little indications of these signs coming to pass. Yes, the political process is slow and painful, and counterproductive to quelling the violence, but there is progress. Yes, there is an insurgency in Iraq, but it is being fought by the Iraqi government alongside with the Coalition forces. Yes, there is sectarian violence, but this violence is not sanctioned by the government of Iraq, or the political or religious leaders. Yes, there are armed militias and rogue elements within the security services, but the majority of the Iraqi politicians recognize the threat they pose and are working to diminish the power of militias.
The Iraqi Security Forces continue to take on more of the security responsibility. And in an encouraging sign of political progress, the Iraqi politicians have agreed on the creation of a Security Council designed to “give each of the country’s main political factions a voice in making security and economic policies for a new government…” and is “expected to set policies governing the army and police, the counter-insurgency campaign in Sunni Muslim Arab areas and the disarmament of Shiite Muslim militias accused of sectarian killings.”
Also, there is talk that SCIRI may break with the United Iraqi Alliance and join with Kurdish, secular Shiite and Sunni parties to nominate Abdel Mahdi as prime minister. This would override the UIA’s appointment of Jaafari, and reduce the influence of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Madhi Army militia is thought to be behind much of the Shiite-led sectarian violence. While this has not been confirmed, it certainly demonstrates the various parties are willing to discuss options, despite political or sectarian differences.
The threat of a civil war in Iraq is quite real, particularly if the political process breaks down. Iraq may be a step or two from a civil war, but it is not there yet.
78 Comments
Pushing Sadr to the fringe is good.
I am pleased that fewer of our troops are being killed daily, thus perhaps defining a weakening or redirected “insurgency”. Still, the rising Iraqi daily death rate, in more and more better defined sectarian oriented violence, is nothing to be proud of and hardly evidence of our long awaited “victory”. Citing India’s case is reasonable yet the reason the term “civil war” is not bandied about there is that no one seriously expects India to devolve into widespread warfare and possible dissolution to smaller antongistic states. Anyone who does not see this as the real potential of current Iraqi trends is kidding themselves. Big time. Mr. Allawi himself (remember, one of our guys?) is calling it a civil war.
jeff
Welcome to another day of “Persuasive Redefinition” Today’s lesson — how to claim you’re winning when things are actually getting worse. Point 1 — take a term being used commonly and redefine it. For instance, “civil war” generall means an internal violent political conflict. However, if you say that “civil war” is an improvement on “insurgency” then you’ve just made “civil war” a lot less bad a thing. Tomorrow’s lesson: Torture and the Fraternity hazing, because no one needs to understand the difference.
Bill Roggio
I wouldn’t invest too much time in trying to analyze the media’s motives and beliefs. You’re much better at analyzing and breaking down the military side of events in Iraq. That seems to be your strength and in that you are very helpful. Much of the media clearly doesn’t have a very good handle on military maters. I think there are many historical reasons for this but shedding light on that requires a depth of knowledge of the media itself that frankly I don’t see from you or Richard Hernandez.
I agree with your assessment that the media is getting much of this wrong. Frankly, I think your assessment of why the media thinks that way misses the mark as much as it helps. I just honestly hope your not wandering too far away from your strengths. I think there are others better equipped to fight the viewpoint wars.
Also, so I don’t post twice on a similar subject. I didn’t think your CNN interview went off particularly well. I don’t think that anyone that was not familiar with your site already, got a good impression of what you are about from the interview. Frankly, I think the other journalists easily talked right passed you. TV commentary is a skill set by itself.
I hope I wasn’t just being irritating with my comment.
I disagree completely with Neo-andertal.
First, Bill and Richard both do an excellent job criticising the Media. Bill has pointed out that the media does not give context for military actions. To the MSM, each military engagement is unrelated to every other engagement – and that is nonsense. The engagements add up to coherent campaigns that are quietly accomplishing larger goals. The MSM portrays the engagements as mindless flailing.
The MSM’s failure is partly due to a lack of undestanding of military matters, a lack of effort to see the larger patterns, a penchant for bad news and a distrust of the military. The military is limited in how much it can help the MSM understand the complexities because it cannot reveal many of its tactics and strategies for security reasons.
Second, I think Bill did very well in the interview – given the limited time available. His answers were on point, concise and coherent.
One bit at a time Bill. Keep up the great analysis.
Jeff,
The British foreign minister claims that Allawi told him that he did no think that there was civil war in Iraq. Allawis public statements could well be political manuvering to influence the formation of Iraqs new government.
Maimonides thinks things are getting worse yet US and Iraqi Security Force deaths are down and the new Iraqi government is being formed. Spin away.
What I read here is a lot of analysis of the facts, then arriving at the opposite conclusion of what the facts would suggest.
Characterizing Iraq as being in a state of civil war is not a “backhanded” way of saying the insurgency has been defeated. The insurgency has not been defeated. Rather, it appears now to be met instead by Shiite groups operating outside of the control of the Iraqi government. Despite this, our soldiers continue to die regularly as targets of the insurgency, and suicide attacks continue. The insurgency has not gone away; rather, it has been overshadowed by even worse violence. This is not an improvement.
If you read carefully, you will realize that it is not only irrelevant that Iraqi security forces are taking on more of the fighting, but it might actually be a bad development. If those security forces represented a government that represented all Iraqis, and those security forces were impartial and not dominated by Shiite militia memberw, we might be able to say this is progress. Instead, the security forces appear to be being used by some Shiites to abet or aid in carrying out attacks on Sunnis. This only furthers civil war. Merely turning over the fighting to the security forces-“standing down as they stand up” as it were-will not solve this problem. It will only make it worse.
Lastly, it is silly to argue about whether Iraq is in a state of civil war or not. Do not think that I direct this criticism merely at conservatives; it angers me to hear liberals declaring civil war so they can critcize Bush for yet another failure or float their plans for how we can abandon Iraq. But your own example of India show us why comparisons and labels are futile; surely no one would argue that India is in the midst of civil war, and yet surely no one would argue that Iraq could not easily be in the beginning stages of a civil war. On this point you may be correct, but it is also irrelevant. Iraqi conditions are unique, and the state of affairs can be judged only against what has happened and what may yet happen. There is no other way to measure this, and labels are useless.
#8 Xanthippas
For someone commenting on the importance of “facts vs conclusions”, you havent presented any “facts” at all.
Seems to me that you are commiting an even greater sin than what you criticize this forum for.
No Civil War? Oh, Really?
Republican Senator Church Hagel admitted on a Sunday talk show that generals have told him that a “low grade” civil war has been going on in Iraq for the last six months to a year:
“I think we have had a low-grade civil war going on in Iraq, certainly the last six months, maybe the last year,” said Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
“Our own generals have told me that privately, George. So that’s a fact. And for us to walk away from that or try to hue this up with some rosy veneer–”
So why don’t you Bush apologists just stop drinking the Kool-Aid and face reality for once? Put a fork in him – Bush’s done.
The problem is that supporters of the war lie routinely. A year ago they claimed less American roops being killed, but deaths for 2004 and 2005 are almost identical. A few days ago they announced increased electric production right before the officials announced a 3 year low.
No one in their riht mind claimed that the insurgency would over run US troops as Fernandez has claimed. But they continue to harass and they have increased.
Concern over civil war is not new and it is not coming up because the insurgency is defeated. It’s coming up because other tensions in Iraq are becomoming more apparent as things stress. These include corruption and crime.
Failure to address problems has been the problem. People like yourself and Fernandez who first declared the insurgency defeated in July 2003 and has done so several times yearly since then have encoyraged this administration to avoid facing problems, admitting mistakes or making corrections.
This far more than any nonsense coming from the left has reduced the odds of success.
I’m going to have to chime in in agreement with what Xanthippas said. When you’ve got a situation in which you’ve still got a couple of bombings and close to sixty bodies slain execution style turning up every day, all is not well.
Iraq might not yet erupt into an all-out civil war, but to say that we are not seeing large-scale massacres and thus things are fine but for the media trying to put a negative spin on things is a very bad idea.
Iraq is in serious trouble, especially in Baghdad. Simply denying that is not going to end the ongoing slaughter.
I’d like to hear more about how the United States is having a Civil War.
Specifically, where’s the conventional battles and/or prolonged violence?
#10:
Hum. Every interview I’ve seen from a general in Iraq has said that there isnt a civil war. I haven’t seen one yet that says otherwise. Therefore, I find it hard to believe Hagel.
If Hagel is telling the true, then he needs to name names. Which general, specifically said it? When did he say it? What were his exact words? Who else was there listening when he said it?…….
I’m Back…..I received an email from Bill inviting me to continue to comment. So first let me state I am not leftest. Attacking me and others with name-calling does not help us figure out where we are in Iraq and where we are going to continue to go.
Second, if you want to persuade someone to see your side of things, mean hateful remarks are not going cut it.
Thirdly, I will try to keep my questions and comments open-minded.
So here is my comments/questions for now>
Do you think that if we “play” the game like the enemy, that this would help the situation in Iraq?
And who is killing the people that they keep finding shot in the head every day in Iraq?
~Lisa:>)
#11 Mary Darling:
Its been my experiance that the detractors of the war routinely lie. And you yourself provide an excellent example.
You said:
“A few days ago they announced increased electric production right before the officials announced a 3 year low.”
Here is the data that proves you are wrong:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63086.pdf
See slide12. In fact the, the 3 year low was in Dec 2004. And electicity production has increased over the last month from 80,00KWH to 100,000KW.
Also, what should we do IF Iraq should break out in civil war? Stay? Leave?
What about the poor ordinary Iraqis?? These poor people are scared all the time. How do we bring peace to them?
What do we do about the rogue nations and factions that are helping make matters worse in Iraq?
Lisa~:>)
If the media actually cared about being intellectually honest about the war, they would place it in a historical context, which would show how small of a casualty total this war has had.
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/03/the_winds_of_wa.html
When in history have so few people been dying in wars?
“Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said”
In 2003, USAid bought on behalf of Iraq 31,000 Metric Tons of Nebraska beans. This year Iraq is only buying 10,000 Metric Tons of Nebraska beans.
The message is clear, unless Iraq buys more beans from Nebraska, it will decend into a full blown civil war.
http://www.senate.gov/~bennelson/news/details.cfm?id=239389&&
http://www.starherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16127834&BRD=484&PAG=461&dept_id=553251&rfi=6
A bit more,
“the shift of meme from the “insurgency” to a “civil war” is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco.”
Lisa,
Welcome back.
Everyone,
A great and insightful post on the third anniversary by Mohammed at Iraq the Model. A must read.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Question for everyone:
#1 Do you think that the war in Iraq is being prosecuted aggressively enough. My personal opinion is that Bush is using too much hearts/minds rather than the bombs/bullets.
#2 Is there any Democrat out there who would have been more aggressive in fighting terrorists in Iraq? My personal belief after watching Murtha/Amnesty International/Sheehan embraced by the left side, etc, its hard for me to comprehend how the left would be more aggressive.
I’ve got a lot of complaints on Bush, but the way Im seeing this now is that Bush is half heartedly fighting this war, unfortunately I don’t see any indications that a democrat would fight at all. 50 cents may not be a dollar, but it beats a nickle.
Intellegent comments appreciated.
The annual murder rate in the US is 7x our total losses in Iraq (2004 stat 16k+).
To any historian, the war in Iraq has a surprizingly low casualty rate.
That does not make it easier for those who do get hit (and their families).
The only people who think war is good have never been in one.
Wars are not nice, sometimes they are necessary.
Lisa –
Welcome back.
“What about the poor ordinary Iraqis?? These poor people are scared all the time. How do we bring peace to them?”
Perhaps we do what we did 3 years ago. Send in our Military to stop a despot from killing thousands of his own citizens. Were they not terrified by Saddam?
Tom
Actually, arguing the semantics issue is a convenient diversionary tactic for the Bush acolytes. Rather than focusing on the facts on the ground, the argument over the meaning of civil war is an abstract debate. The right wing never discusses the daily kidnappings, shootings, torture, and general lawlessnes that is the rule rather than the exception in Iraq. Instead, wingers simply note that there aren’t pitched battles in the streets between uniformed armies defending fixed geographical territory. They therefore conclude all is well.
When the only argument you have is that “it could be worse,” you’ve lost the rhetorical debate. Iraq is a disaster, and worse, you and I are paying for it. Is Iraq any less of a threat to the United States than it was 3 years ago. No, of course not. That is the only metric that matters.
Thanks Tim!
I’ll read your link.
Lisa~:>)
JAF:
I can intelligently say that I don’t know enough about waging war to answer your quesions… plus I am not there in Iraq so I really can’t say without drawing from reports ect. how aggressive this war is being waged. That’s why I am here to try gain more knowledge and when my daughter asks me “What are we there for?” again, I might be able to tell her with a more clear answer.
Lisa~:>)
Hi Tom,
Yes, they were under the rule of a horrible man and many paid with their lifes.
I am sure they glad he is gone.
What I mean is I can only guess that these people are scared because of the violence that continues daily now. I try to put myself in their place and I know that traumatizing is the word that comes to my mind. Fear and trauma that would come with this long atmosphere of uncertainty and violence.
What can we do to help relieve them of that?
Lisa~:>)
Mary Darling:
“The problem is that supporters of the war lie routinely. A year ago they claimed less American roops being killed, but deaths for 2004 and 2005 are almost identical.”
Here’s Icasualties.org’s (not exactly the right wing) figures in deaths/day:
US: Oct: 3.2, Nov: 2.9, Dec: 2.2, Jan:2.1, Feb:2.1, March: 1.1. Average = 2.3. Same period last year, average = 2.8.
Iraq Forces: Oct:6.9, Nov:5.9, Dec:6.2, Jan:6.1, Feb:5.6, March: 5.1.
Those are the facts m’am whether you like them or not.
Disclaimer: lower casualties doesn’t really indicate whether you are “winning” or not. After all you can get zero casualties by hiding in bunkers all day I suppose.
Lisa:
“Do you think that if we “play” the game like the enemy, that this would help the situation in Iraq?”
Is this a serious question? The enemy is currently “playing the game” by blowing civilians up. I am sure we could do a more effective job of that then they can but I don’t think depopulation is a very effective strategy for democratizing a region.
“And who is killing the people that they keep finding shot in the head every day in Iraq?”
Now THAT is a good question. I suspect a considerable amount of thug on thug crime, which, not to be too callous, isn’t always a bad thing.
#25: mkultra:
Maybe you dont remember, but the debate over insurgency vs civil war was a Democrat/Left initiated issue, not Bush initiated issue. To follow your logic, I should then conclude that the Democrats/Left are engaging in diversionary tactics.
What an idiotic conclusion that the insurgency has been defeated. As a result of two weeks of significantly reduced American casualties, someone is ready to make this conclusion already. Even if this trend continues, the insurgency has not been defeated but only weakened. There are still 75 attacks per day on US and Iraqi forces by the insurgents. The differences now are that the Iraqi forces are bearing the brunt of it more and detection of IED devices is improving. That’s the only difference. There is still a Sunni insurgency going on in Iraq and Sunni cities such as Ramadi still have significant fighting.
What an idiotic conclusion that the insurgency has been defeated. As a result of two weeks of significantly reduced American casualties, someone is ready to make this conclusion already. Even if this trend continues, the insurgency has not been defeated but only weakened. There are still 75 attacks per day on US and Iraqi forces by the insurgents. The differences now are that the Iraqi forces are bearing the brunt of it more and detection of IED devices is improving. That’s the only difference. There is still a Sunni insurgency going on in Iraq and Sunni cities such as Ramadi still have significant fighting.
Mukultra,
Good comments, arguing about semantecs is nothing. Just like not admitting the genocide in Darfur creates one less victim. While the UN bickers, nothing gets done. But in your opinion, should we just cut our losses and pull out? Would that be “rewarding” terrorism and senseless violence?
Just a side note: a co-founder of CodePink was on OReilly tonight and she said that CodePink would support international pressure, but not sancions (and presumably mil-action) against Iran if they continue on the nuke-path.
Time for a few rebuttals.
1. Jeff
“Still, the rising Iraqi daily death rate, in more and more better defined sectarian oriented violence, is nothing to be proud of and hardly evidence of our long awaited “victory”.”
peterargus,
What I mean by playing “their game” is turning the tables around not by killing innocent people but by attacking their money sources and backing…shake the organizations up…make it crumble…implode by making them question WHO is their enemy and who their friends.
They won’t give no more than we would if they were here. So we have to think differently.
Also, there is new report out that will make the our military look bad:
Iraqis Accuse U.S. Marines of ‘Massacre’ which is reported by the AP
Lisa~:>)
OOPs looks like I had one glass of wine too many!!
My spelling is horrible!
Sorry
Lisa
Lisa
You might look up the reporting of Sunni tribes going to war with Al Quida in Iraq and AQIs assasinations of Sunni tribal leaders.
When two enemys fight each other, we win.
Haven’t we seen all this before? Last time it took a long while to get an interim govt established and we saw an upsurge in violence when the terrorists saw this as an opportunity. How much of this so called Civil War ( gee I enjoyed using “so-called” just then)will dry up and disappear with a govt formed? Not all to be sure but the incentive will be gone. I also think if Moqtada Al Sadr can be neutered somehow we will also see a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence, it will suddenly be put into the perspective that only some of us can currently see.
Wow. I use to love this site, as it is very informative in terms of what the military is doing to fight this insurgency. But I must say, this is such a try-hard pathetic propaganda.
Melinda,
I can’t speak for everyone else, but I come to this site for information and what I believe is better analysis of the military aspects of this war than I can find in the media.
If you believe this site to be propaganda, I would be interested in what in particular on this site is propaganda and why you think it is.
Do you have any links to sites that do better commentary and analysis? I’m willing to update my favorites.
Al-Jaafari – Teetering On the Edge?
Earlier this month, Sachi posted Al-Jaafari Must Step Down to Unify Iraq, in which she argued that Interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the major reason there has not yet been agreement on a permanent government. Ibrahim al-Jaafari of the…
JAF:
The part about the insurgency being defeated when all the evidence points to the contrary is propaganda. If the insurgency was “defeated”, they wouldn’t be able to kill 18 police in a prison raid and free 30 of their prisoners.
Bill,
I’ll be glad to agree with you – when we find the:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction;
2. Uranium, courtesy of Niger;
3. Saddam-Osama Hate Letters in The Sand that show their ties to the horrors of 9/11
‘Til then, you’re just dealing for the house … off the bottom of the deck.
Peterb:
The important point is not that there was an attack on a prision. the important point is the fact that there are so few of theser kind of attacks like this(larger scale coordinated attacks). That is the evidence that point to the weakness of the insurgency.
Peterb,
Good point, anyone who says that there is no violence and all things are hunky-dory is definitely overlooking a lot. VP Cheney comes across to me as a pretty smart guy, which is why for the life of me I can’t figure out why he said that the insurgency is in it’s last throes. I’m wondering if he meant that the insurgency as an organized force capable of expelling or inflicting mass casualties (50/day) upon our troops is over and now we are in the period of grinding down into insignificance insurgent groups as they morph/move/popup.
To Bill’s credit he posts the following:
Yes, there is an insurgency in Iraq, but it is being fought by the Iraqi government alongside with the Coalition forces. Yes, there is sectarian violence, but this violence is not sanctioned by the government of Iraq, or the political or religious leaders. Yes, there are armed militias and rogue elements within the security services, but the majority of the Iraqi politicians recognize the threat they pose and are working to diminish the power of militias.
I think that is a pretty good summation and not propaganda. I think what Bill and Richard Hernandez are trying to point out is that the shift from using “insurgency” to “civil war” in big media is the realization that they understand that the insurgency is just not capable enough to throw out the infidels. I think its an interesting point and worth debating.
Ira brings up the WMD issue and regarding that, I highly recommend this book from Sadaam’s bombmaker.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471679658.html
I read it awhile back and was impressed in the ingenuity of how Sadaam was racing towards the bomb, Scientists held hostage, the setbacks, and the tricks used to fool the inspectors. He also talks of how he hid documents and bomb components in his garden, away from the inspectors and how it was all nearly destroyed when a dud missle landed within feet of it.
Check it out if you get the chance.
More information on the book and the author here:
The Bomb in My Garden.
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no4/bombs_in_garden.html
Christopher Hitchens in todays Opinion Journal editorial states how the Iraq civil war came to be. I strongly share this view with him.
—————-
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention (“to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates” and “accelerate the emergence of the Messiah”), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq’s largest confessional group that: “These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger.”
Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of “al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. “Civil war” has replaced “the insurgency” as the proof that the war is “unwinnable.” But in plain truth, the “civil war” is and always was the chief tactic of the “insurgency.”
OpinionJournal: The Stone Face of Zarqawi
I read the definitions of civil war.
I Thought about the second (liberal) definition, pulled out my atlas, and thought about the 43 countries I have been to.
All of them are in civil war by that definition.
So have all of the countries that I know something about.
Bad definition.
Insurgencies are ugly, bloody, and tend to be prolonged (see Colombia).
They also make great cover for criminals to make a buck.
I wonder how much of the kidnapings/crime are just to make money. After all, some of the prisoners Saddam let out may have belonged in prison.
Or to get revenge against enemys. How many collaberators were hung in France after Germany was kicked out?
And they feed the press plenty of stories because all wars are inherently messy.
As to those that say there was no plan, that just illustrates their ignorance of warfare. I was always taught the following rules about war plans:
“1. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” and
“2. There is always a plan. See rule one.”
Will the insurgency be over soon.
In historical terms – probably.
In US instant gratification terms, only carpet bombing with nukes would have been fast enough for the nay sayers and the press. And then the anti-nuke lobby would be after US. For most of those who think this was wrong, nothing could have been right.
I also found myself agreeing with Cori Dauber’s perspective this morning.
—————–
[…]if what is happening in Iraq is a civil war, it is much easier to justify a US withdrawal, because it’s easy to say we have no place in the middle of an internal Iraqi dispute, it’s nothing to do with us, there’s nothing we can do to solve it, and there’s no moral demand upon our blood and treasure. If they insist on fighting one another, there’s nothing we can do about it, and why should we spend American lives getting in the middle of it? That becomes the argument. The more someone wants us out or has an agenda for wanting us out, the more they have reason to characterize what’s happening as a civil war.
Rantingprofs: Why A Civil War?
Hello Everybody,
Someone mentioned Columbia as an example of insurgencies…what a depressing example to me.
I will research Columbia.
This is something that concerned me when I heard the President speak today. Reported by CNN as follows:
Bush also may have hinted that U.S. forces could remain in Iraq after his presidency ends in January of 2009 — in his answer to a reporter’s question about when American forces will no longer be there.
“That, of course, is an objective,” Bush said, “And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.”
He said it because I heard him.
What does this mean?? Does this mean we could still be there 10 to 15 years from now? Can we sustain this military action that long? Can we afford this monetarily? How long do you think the American public will hold out before they force an end to this war? I mean people need to see a light at the end of the tunnel. That is just the nature of most people…they need to see that there will be an end. Also, the longer we there the the Iraqis will become tiresome of us therefore it will cause a pressure cooker effect that will surely explode.
Then on the other hand we cannot leave for fear of leaving a breeding ground for terrorist who already seem to be popping up like ant piles.
You can kill one ant mound and they just pop up somewhere else.
It feels sometimes like a lose/lose situation. I hope that I am wrong, I really do.
I know I will probably get attacked for this post but I think it deserves a great deal of consideration. What say you?
Lisa~:>)
Lisa,
You shouldn’t be attacked for your question as to it is a very good question. I didn’t hear the press conference but I don’t think that Bush meant that we will be having this huge >120K troops stationed in Iraq for the next 10 to 15 years. We may have a small contingent of trainers, instructers, or advisors. I’m sure it won’t be in the numbers that we have there now. Heck, I just found out this week that we had troops in Iceland. (???)
Im not a terrorism or Columbia expert so I won’t comment on those aspects. But there is one comforting thought, from what I’m seeing and understanding, the IA seems to be getting better and better. It may be 2 steps forward, 1 step back, but it is moving forward and gaining in strength.
The “insurgency” is in fact winding down, and is, for the most part, militarily spent. Low grade attacks on patrols with remote bombs is not a path to military victory by any reasonable measure. It’s a tactic that can inflict casualties, yes, but ultimately wins no territory, changes no borders, and no power switches hands. It’s ultimately a tactic of fear, and is evolving into less of a threat, since we hold the technological edge (air transport, bomb detection and intervention, many of our current methods of which are still top secret and not known to the general public).
The “civil war” that is being fought in Iraq is the same “civil war” that has been fought amongst the Muslim sectarians for the last 1500 or so years. Those same divisions are being currently exploited. However, a full scale civil war would involve, at least in the traditional sense of what that term means, mass movements of troops against each other, the goal being the gain of territory and/or power. Pulling over a bus full of citizens, stripping them down to their underwear, and shooting them in the back of the head accomplishes none of these goals – it is simply a criminal act of terrorism against a rival group. The question remains – Why aren’t we seeing these mass movements of rival groups against each other?
Could it be that the insurgents that would comprise such an army have already been militarily defeated by a superior force, and are unable to muster either the arms or material neccessary to sustain such movements? Or could it be that such a concentration of forces would be suicidal (not usually a consideration for Muslim “armies”) since it would create a nice, fat target for our military to dispatch? Hence, we see small acts of violence, an attempt to inspire capitulation from the central government through terror. In other words, exactly the same methods employed by the Basque seperatists, the Tamil Tigers, the various and sundry homegrown rebels of India, and, in a much more pathetic sense, the white and black supremacist movements of the U.S. Have we forgotten the methods and resulting fear caused by the D.C. Sniper already?
Thanks JAF!
As far as the Iraq Army, is the US military stepping back somewhat to see what they (IA) are capable of doing? If so, what is their progress?
About the militias or groups of thugs that are continuing to kill each day (example: bodies being found throughout the area with gunshot wounds)…what steps are being taken to locate and stop them?
Also, what do you think will happen with Iran?
I have a friend that is a Vietnam Vet who says we need to bomb them and set them back a couple of centuries. If we did take action there in Iran what would be the ramifications since I believe China and Russia are their allies??
I think we need a 007 James Bond kinda guy:)
Lisa~:>)
Hey Don,
Very insightful comment.
However, terrorism to me even if it is in small pockets can have a chilling effect on the people?
I know if we had that going on here in my neighborhood or town, it would be very scary.
Is this just what Iraqis may have to fight off and on throughout the future (small acts of violence)?
I gather from your comment that you feel as thought this is their last gasp of air so to speak.
Lisa~:>)
Lisa,
As far as the IA, Bill has been doing pretty well monitoring their progress. He noted today a very important point:
Since the fall of Saddam’s regime, there have been both triumphs and setbacks for those attempting to establish a free society in Iraq. The setbacks have been tactical and not strategic in nature. For instance, after the Coalition recognized the mistakes in structuring the Iraqi army, the force was quickly restructured to fight the insurgency. There are now almost 50 Iraqi battalions in the lead fighting the insurgency, with another 80 battalions in supporting roles. The Iraqi security forces have yet to meet their full potential. http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium200603210847.asp
There are a few guys here that actually keep track of the IA brigades/battalions etc etc and what areas and operations that they are involved in. I don’t have the stats (nor the expertise), so I will defer to them.
As far as the militias, thats another tough nut. I keep thinking of the Bloods and Crips in LA, but with religious attitude and more firepower. They do pretty well terrorizing their local neighborhoods, but have less support outside of their turf.
Iran??? Another tough nut. The Iranian Prez talks a good game about destroying Israel, threatening Europe, and putting a hurt on America. I’m not a poker player, but I’m just not getting that fuzzy feeling that this guy is bluffing.
The splash and waves in todays Middle East will ripple for generations. Im praying that the desire for change, reform, and freedom will win out.
Lisa
A thumbnail status report on Iraqi Armed Forces:
– Navy/Marines: 80 percent. Two Italian Frigates being delivered(They have a short coastline and do not need much.)
– Air Force: 5-10 percent. The number and type of aircraft they have would make a small rotary/fixedwing transport command. This is a dangerious neighborhood – they need air/air defense.
If you look up which AmEmbs around the world have a MAAG/ODC component, you will find that we have “advisors” all over the world. They do not get much attention.
– Army: 60 percent. The concentration was on “teeth” first and almost all battallions planned are formed and at varying capabilities. Logistics plus 75 percent of Brigade HQ and 80 percent of Division HQ are expected to be operational by end of summer.
MNSTC-I is embedding 11 man “advisory” teams at Bn/Bde/Div levels in army and National Police. They will be there for a long time (Prob convert to MAAG in 1-2 years).
Iraqi army is seriously short in Medical, Engneering, etc. (Support elements) also the IA has no Artillery.
IA is currently good for counter-insurgency ops -not full scale war. Iraq is in a dangerious neighborhood with Iran and Syria next door. Their army will need to be improved.
My best guess (situation contingent) is that US/Allied forces will be 50-75K by end 2006.
20-40K by end 2007. MAAG (and maybe air bases) by election 2008 (politics driven).
Oh God Guys…I have a real bad feeling that we will be at war with Iran soon. This scares me. I mean really, really scares me. Maybe I should turn off the tv and quit reading about this stuff…and go piddle in my yard and pretend that everything is okay.
I had a feeling that we might be aiming in that direction when I began hearing the same words from the Pres., Vice Pres and Rice that I remember hearing before going into Iraq.
What will happen to us if we should take that action??? I want my daughter to grow up in a world that isn’t shrouded in fear and war. What can be done?
Lisa
Lisa
Just a couple of thoughts.
I think it’s wrong to attribute too much to the MSM. they use these words and phrases as short hand because they are too lazy to think for themselves. If reporter A say “civil war” then reporter B repeats and so on. It’s not about getting the facts right, or even providing an accurate portrayal of this situation, it’s trying to cram a complex dynamic situation into a two minute segment.
I doubt I have been clear enough so let me provide an example. during Viet nam, the media located all battles based solely on their distance from Saigon. We heard nothing about the region, the terrain, the locals, proximity to borders, nothing. All we got was such and such happen as this place which is x miles from Saigon.
Now we see the exact same laziness. Operation swarmers took place x miles from baghdad. That’s pretty much it for locational context. It’s all they will take the time for and the audience is left to figure out the rest for themselves, or not.
the seventies style media approach is simply incapable of getting this right. they need more ernie pyle and less walter cronkite. They need to take the time and make the effort.
since they won’t, well, we come to places like this.
next, Co altion casualties. this is a rather ghoulish game played by both sides in the Iraq war debate. The supporters point to the data as an indication of improvement while the detractors run to the “every death is an unnecessary tragedy” rebuttal.
the sad truth seems to be that casualty numbers are a proxy. they cannot provide, by themselves, any qualititative value beyond a limited range. If the casualty counts go down and stay down long enough to look like a trend, then conclusions can be drawn, but the snapshot approach, in the current environment, simply won’t tell the story.
As another poster pointed out, casualty numbers could descend immediately if we simply stopped patroling. Hunkering down on the bases and FOB’s would reduce casualty count. Of course it would also end effectiveness.
Last summer as our gracious host pointed out, the military quietly engaged in a series of operations designed to change the situation in Anbar. The marines started in Fallujah and did an updated version of island hopping as they sought to put down the insurgents and cut their supply lines.
On the few days that our brave guys assaulted a city, the casualty numbers spiked. Were we losing on those days? Hardly, we were fighting hard.
What do the spikes caused by these assaults do to the validity of the proxy? if we really aren’t running operations of that magnitude any more, or if they are now joint operations, does that change the trend line?
As you can see from the rebuttal here, any aknowledgement that the casualty count is trending down is also met with a complaint that others are dying in place of our troops.
it is to be supposed that to these critics, Iraqis should not have to fight for their freedom. In the perfect world they demand, freedom just happens I suppose. contending with evil people who are willing to kill to get what they want simply doesn’t happen in the orderly world imagined by the critics.
What does the initials MSM stand for?
I was born in the 60’s and I can remember when there were 3 channels. I remember everyday seeing the names of the soldiers KIA’s MIA’s scrolling on the tv.
I remember my Dad’s brother going to Vietnam and he was never the same…he died 2 years ago…drank and smoked himself to death.
Lisa
marine dad
Your right, casualties mean more in the context of events. I look at baseline casualties too, but their is only a limited amount of information you can draw from them.
Lisa,
MSM stands for Main Stream Media, which encompasses CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS. Toss in the New York Times as well.
Sometimes it is used in a derogatory manner. Many don’t think that they are doing a good job in accurately reporting the situation on the ground. Some will just sit in a Baghdad hotel and pay “Achmed” to get a story. “Achmed” knows that good news doesn’t really sell so he just comes back with some news, and of course embellishes on it. If he comes back and says 40 bodies were taken to the morgue, someone will report it to be nearly 50, then someone else will report at least 50, several dozen, and so on and so forth until its a couple of hundred.
Remember with hurrican Katrina when reporters were saying that bodies were piling up on the super dome and there were “reports” of women being raped? Hysteria creates hysteria. Bad news sells. Good news does not.
I share your angst regarding Iran and your daughter growing up in a world of fear and war. There are many brave men and women fighting for that reality right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only are they doing it for your daughter, but also for Iraqi and Afgan children so they don’t live under Sadaam or Taliban-like tyranny. They deserve our support.
JAF,
I am mixed on how I feel about the media. Sometimes I can tell when they slant something but sometimes I think they get things right.
Do I remember Katrina! I live in Louisiana! I was in Rita and helped when we had Katrina evacuees flooding this direction. I also remember sitting and watching as Hurricane Katrina was aiming at Miss., Alabama, and Louisiana hearing the weather lady say if they don’t get those people out of there…well I feel so sorry for them. I couldn’t believe the ignorance of our state government, our local government, all the way to the top. I emailed Sen Frist, Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin (both who seem to have their heads up their you know whats) with the NOAA report that was given out 2 days ahead of this storm stating the conditions what this storm would cause and said if even a lowly citizen such as myself could figure this out then what the heck was wrong??
I told them it was a failure from the bottom up and that they could not turn their heads from this.
SO when Rita was coming our way this time, everybody fled that could from the bottom 2 parishes and bought out every drop of gas and non-perishable food item from our parish along the way. After the storm, my parish was closed, no water, food or electricity after the storm. Scariest crap to here that wind. BUT the aftermath of the storm is a lot worse and people, even men that I wouldn’t expect were in a tither! And HOT whew. My mom became sick so we had to find a way out and get her to a cool shelter. I don’t look foward to the next hurricane season either. There are still people living in tents along the hurricane ravaged areas. Many places look as if it happened yesterday.
I definitely support our troops! Most people do.
Lisa~:>)
Oh yeah, they didn’t evacuate out parish…we couldn’t have left because we tried as I tried to get to the bank and it took me an hour just to go over 4 miles to get there. The roads were so clogged you couldn’t go hardly anywhere. Then I had a surprise visit from an ailing friend who had kidney failure come to stay out the storm and she was in my hallway for the most part of the ordeal. It was awful- just awful.
Won’t ever do that again! If it’s in the gulf I’m gone LOL
And I think it will be another active hurricane season this year.
Lisa~:>)
Boy did we get way off topic. I used to live in LA too and I remember how bad some of those floods can be, never mind Katrina. I think you picked up my point on how the media can things wrong by embellishing and not doing as much fact checking as they can. In a business such as big media in which bragging rights are about who broke the story first, things (facts) can get out of hand.
Im glad you made thru the hurricane seasons and I hope you are prepared for the next. My relatives down there had to drive close to Dallas before they found a generator to buy after Katrina went thru.
Lisa
Did it ever occur to you that the only strategy left for the insurgency is to conduct random attacks so that an ignorant and biased press will spin it in a way that makes militariy inept people like you and mary darling post stupid commentary on an otherwise intelligent website?
Leeza,
I’ve been posting back and forth with Lisa and Im just not getting that feeling that she is here to blather out propaganda or post stupid commentaries to get on your nerves. From our posts, I can tell we have some of the same concerns, (long drawn out war, Iran, etc etc)
Is there anything wrong with that?
Well JAF,
Looks like I can’t win for losing! Thanks for standing up for me though. I actually do want to learn more about the actual situation on the ground. I am not here to grate on peoples nerves.
I think just because I have questions and some doubts about things does not constitue me as an inept person but Leeza can babble on all she wants to about me.
Thanks JAF!
Lisa~:>)
Leeza- I can leave this sight and rely completely on the media as do most Americans. My guess is that is what you desire…people on here that only have your view without any questions.
Hi Lisa,
Leeza may have done what is a common problem with posting boards. Someone will come on read one or two posts by a particular person instead of going back in time to read all posts and getting a clear picture of the background. Then they make judgements based on one or two comments. Kind of goes hand in hand about what I believe the media is doing in Iraq, looking at or two things and ignoring a lot more.
To tell you the truth, I think me and you are on the same page. We both believe that we Americans are the good guys wanting to defeat terrorists and defend the weak against their oppressors in Iraq. We are both nervous about a long drawn out war. We are both concerned about Iran and the future for our kids. I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t have butterflies in my stomach about the whole thing. But I believe that we Americans are doing the right thing intervening on behalf of the weak, even with the mistakes that we made.
By the way, I’m glad you come to this site.
JAF 😉
“We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.” – Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi
Dick Tuck,
Whether one calls it civil war or sectarian strife means nothing to the 50 – 60 daily victims. They are still dead hurt maimed wounded.
When I read that quote, I say to myself “Damn, we need to kill more of those terrorist bastards. GITMO is too good for them.”
Dick Tuck-
Saddam also claims there is civil war. Shall we trust him also? I think not… The Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi will know when and if civil war breaks out.
Lisa
Thanks JAF,
Maybe so…maybe they (Leeza) didn’t read my previous posts.
The violence in Iraq is very sad and hard to understand sometimes. If this is sectarian devision causing one to murder another in the name of God or religion, that makes it even more hard to understand.
Do you think I have turned-off people from posting on here?
I hope not.
Lisa~:>)
Lisa~:>)
I don’t think you’ve turned off people here, at least not me.
There is a problem sometimes when people come to this board and say things like “ChimpyBush McHalliburton” is killing iraq women and eating children and so and so forth just to create mayhem. Not exactly reasonable debate. I think overall, disagreement is welcomed here and reasonable debate is encouraged. Passions do get worked up. If you ever get to the point that you don’t feel like you are welcomed here, you can always cruise on over to my blog [http://stupidrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/]. I normally don’t post on this board because I usually just read and learn, but work has been slow lately.
I’m in agreement with you about the violence and how discouraging it is. I think that is exactly what Osama wants us to do. Get discouraged, say that these muslims are not worth the sacrifice and then just abandon them to the tender mercies of the terrorists.
Hope you stick around.
JAF
Also Leeza, it does occur to me that the insurgents have found a way to terrorize Iraqis and try to promote civil war by bombing the mosques. It does occur to me that they (insurgents) are smart and are aware of what scares and provokes people into battle. I think that the insurgents or whatever you want to call them know that we will leave if they can provoke a full blown civil war. I also hope that the Iraqis realize that anyone who can bomb their holiest of places cares nothing about their welfare. It also occurs to me that the media will always play what gets peoples attention whether it’s violence in Iraq or a big murder trial here in the U.S. This is called ratings…that is what pays their bills. Do I think that the media sometimes spins it in a direction of their veiws? Yes, I think that is why I am here…to try to get a full picture of what is actually going on by using sources such as these and yes “gasp” the media. You underestimate me.
Lisa
LOL JAF!
What a cool name- stupidrandomthoughts! I’ll have to try looking your blog up since I quite often have them-stupid random thoughts that is:)
I gotta get moving though for right now.
Check back with you later.
See what’s shaking.
Lisa~:>)
Thanks,
Yeah, I have these random thoughts all the time. Thought I would just post them on a blog to see what others thought.
See you around!!!!!
Let’s wait until Chalabi says it’s a civil war. Now THERE’S a reliable source.