bq. The NOT A CIVIL WAR OH NO marked by Shiite death squad attacks on Sunnis, some of whom are surely guilty of guerrilla activity and some of whom are surely not, is really Insurgency Plus.
This reminds me of something I meant to say the other week. In much the same way as we’re not supposed to call Iraq a quagmire, we’re also not supposed to say it’s on the brink of — or already stuck in to — civil war. It’s worth bearing in mind that just as there are different “kinds of quagmires”:http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2003/09/01/kinds-of-quagmires/ there are also varieties of civil war. An example familiar to me — with the usual caveats that this just meant as an illustrative comparison, not a strong correspondence — is the “Irish Civil War”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War of 1922–23. It was a conflict between Free State forces (the government, who supported the “Anglo-Irish Treaty”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty that ended the “War of Independence”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_War), and the opponents of the treaty, including a majority of the old IRA.
For present purposes, what’s worth noting is that while the conflict was relatively short it was also vicious, especially towards the end, and especially amongst the elites. There was a cycle of execution, retaliation and retribution both in the field and against prisoners. A relatively large proportion of the political class was killed. What did _not_ happen, however, was something like the American Civil War, where large armies repeatedly confronted one another on the battlefield. Moreover, life, as always, went on. The Irish Civil War was largely confined to active combatants, and casualties were heavily concentrated in the leadership. For instance (I’m open to correction here), the Free State army was of course targeted but its unarmed police force was generally not subject to attacks. It’s also worth noting that a very large majority of people did not support the Anti-Treaty side, but that didn’t stop the conflict from happening.
Less than eight years after the war ended the government peacefully handed over power to the party directly descended from the Anti-Treaty forces. For years afterwards many of those in Parliament looked across the aisle at the murderers of their fathers, uncles or brothers. Iraq is very different — much more complex — in all kinds of ways, not least because of its strategic importance, its oil reserves and the continued presence of an occupying army. So the Irish case offers little real direction. Optimistically, maybe, it reminds us that it is in fact possible for severe civil conflict to resolve itself into something like peaceful coexistence. But it also shows that you don’t need to wait for an Antietam or a Gettysburg to say that a country is in the middle of a bitter civil war.
{ 34 comments }
dearieme 03.31.06 at 11:45 am
“What did not happen, however, was something like the American Civil War, where large armies repeatedly confronted one another on the battlefield.” Well obviously; that would have required troops who were prepared to shoot each other in the front. The Irishmen prepared to do that had taken a pounding on the Western Front and a cruel indifference – or worse – to their courage and service on their return home. The Civil War was between different strands of terrorists. Are you sure about the police? I had thought that a lot of the police – predominantly Catholic – were driven out, often settling in the north. Maybe not. Anyone know?
Marc Mulholland 03.31.06 at 11:49 am
Yep, clearly it was heroic to go and fight for King and Empire but cowardly to fight against a British occupation in defiance of the clearly expressed demand for national sovereignty as expressed in the 1918 election of Dail Eireann.
Kieran Healy 03.31.06 at 11:55 am
The Civil War was between different strands of terrorists.
Hmm, a little tendentious don’t you think? Would you care to get into what returning WWI veterans “got up to in Ireland”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans while in the pay of the British Government? Personally, a war where political elites are quite likely to die seems preferable to a pointless slaughter of millions of regular joes on a stationary front line. Perhaps it provided an incentive for the conflict to end quickly.
On second thoughts, I’d rather not refight the period from 1914 to 1922 in this thread, thanks.
Are you sure about the police?
No. That’s why I said I was open to correction.
ASteele 03.31.06 at 12:55 pm
Bravo dearieme, that is some grade A trolling.
abb1 03.31.06 at 12:56 pm
Exile.ru’s editorial: The Civil War Debate.
Hektor Bim 03.31.06 at 1:26 pm
One interesting aspect of this discussion is the presence of Northern Ireland and loyalists (many Protestant) in the south. Just as the IRA targeted loyalists to prove their nationalist bonafides, it appears that in the first wave of the insurgency, Sunni Arabs targeted Christians and Shiites. Kurdistan functions as Northern Ireland and is relatively peaceful and a haven for those escaping from the chaos to the south.
Obviously the fit is not perfect, but it is interesting.
Steve 03.31.06 at 1:27 pm
Note that this also illustrates why it is irrelevant whether we call Iraq a Civil War or not.
If ‘Civil War’ is defined as “a conflict like the American Civil War” then Iraq isn’t a civil war.
If ‘Civil War’ is defined as “a conflict like the Irish Civil War” then maybe Iraq is a civil war.
But ultimately what difference does it make?
If we define ‘chicken sandwich’ as “a conflict like the Irish Civil War” then maybe Iraq is a chicken sandwich.
It makes a difference because opponents of the war want to make the technical argument (civil war=Irish civil war) even though that technical argument won’t shape American perspective of Iraq once the language is used (IRAQ A CIVIL WAR! BUSH A FOOL!*) (*ps. we mean an Irish Civil War-not an American Civil War, of course)
Steve
Steve LaBonne 03.31.06 at 1:29 pm
I think it’s the war proponents / civil-war deniers who are making a “technical argument” Or in plain English, a lie.
BigMacAttack 03.31.06 at 2:04 pm
Sure. Ok. But just make very, very, very sure you don’t surmise that maybe all the assination attempts and slaughters, between this one and that one, in the years prior to the US occupation, pretty much constituted a civil war, and this is just an intensified period.
Because that would be just ridiculious.
Steve LaBonne 03.31.06 at 2:06 pm
It’s a good thing to go in and intesify somebody else’s civil war? An even more novel theory. Contemporary conservatism seems to be a seedbed of all sorts of intellectual advances.
lemuel pitkin 03.31.06 at 2:50 pm
You’ve got some linkage issues there, Kieran — “Jim Henley” just brings you back here.
roger 03.31.06 at 2:54 pm
Why go to the Irish Civil war when the civil war in Northern Iraq, circa 1996, is so much closer? We’ve already seen this, supposedly in the stable part of Iraq, protected from Saddam Hussein’s army by the American air force, and able, in peace and quiet, to host a fullscale clash between two warlords that cost at least 6,000 lives. It amazes me that the war between the PUK and the KDP has gone down the short term memory loss hole. And it also amazes me, a little bit, that three years into the war in Iraq, both the anti war and pro war sides both continue to import history from elsewhere to explain the place, as if Iraq’s own history were a blank we were filling. I understand the use of analogies at the beginning of the war — but at a certain point, an event takes on a density and shape distinct enough that we can dispense with allusions to the Nazis, the Irish, the Vietnamese, the Malaysians, the Indians, the Columbians, the Haitians, the Confederates, the Roundheads, the Fronde, the Spanish, the Algerians, the Palestinians, the Nationalist Chinese, William Tell, and the war between Rome and Carthage. Or so I would think.
Brendan 03.31.06 at 3:14 pm
I think you’re not getting it. The pro-invasioners don’t really care about Iraqis kiling each other: they’ve made that perfectly clear. They also don’t care whether this turns into a ‘civil war’ like the Irish (or, for that matter, American) civil war. Because both of those cases led (in the case of the American one, a loooooooooooong time after) to a democracy, and a relatively unified state, the pro-invasioners could still claim the invasion was a ‘success’.
What the Bushites and HPers are REALLY worried about is a ‘civil war’ situation similar to the first or second Congo war, crossed with the break up of India into India and Pakistan, and then India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
In other words, what they are really concerned about is not so much civil war per se, as the idea that Iraq actually splinters in two (or three), not only involving other powers (Iran, Syria, Turkey, possibly Saudi Arabia and Israel) but also leading to a situation where one (or all) of these mini-state are less than democratic (or possibly openly totalitarian or authoritarian). Not only would this create ‘instability’ (the main horror of the US in the region), but would also undermine US client states in the region (Turkey, certainly, but also possibly Saudi, possibly even Israel).
It would also almost certainly lead to 100s of thousands, possibly millions of deaths, but hey, you can’t make an omelette……..
BigMacAttack 03.31.06 at 3:19 pm
‘It’s a good thing to go in and intesify somebody else’s civil war?’
It depends on the circumstances and the outcome.
It seems to me that, the notion that this is just another chapter in a long bloody mess, can serve as powerful argument for getting out of Iraq.
Iraqis killed each other before we arrived. They are killing each other now that we are there. And they will probably kill each other after we go. Iraqis are good at killing each other. They don’t need our help. So lets leave.
Steve LaBonne 03.31.06 at 3:20 pm
Apologies bigmacattack, I misconstrued your argument. I’m with you. The sooner we get out the better.
P O'Neill 03.31.06 at 3:32 pm
the civil war in Northern Iraq
Which, despite Hitch’s encomiums to “our Kurdish comrades in Northern Iraq” is essentially still ongoing today. By the Irish standard of a nasty but quick civil war, that’s a bad indicator.
abb1 03.31.06 at 3:49 pm
Chris Floyd has a good civil war column too.
joel turnipseed 03.31.06 at 4:11 pm
Roger makes an excellent point. Surely, there’s some utility in making reference to other historical contexts (whether it is other civil wars or previous efforts at U.S. statebuilding–and surely, a text that must only laugh at itself now is Max Boot’s Savage Wars of Peace).
To anyone with the slightest historical sense, the Iraq invasion was going to be a disaster in no uncertain terms. It could, yes, have been less a disaster (I noted the Times’ AP-wire on Condi Rice’s ‘aplogia’ today)–but it was nevertheless going to be a disaster.
I remember reading Lawrence’s Seven Pillars and Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace while I served in the first Gulf War and thinking to myself, “Well, we’ve stepped in it now…” Of course, we’d only stepped in it then (and delicately, with friends)–now Bush, et.al., have jumped feet first into the pile and are still wading through the shit looking desperately for their pony.
Mark 03.31.06 at 4:18 pm
“For years afterwards many of those in Parliament looked across the aisle at the murderers of their fathers, uncles or brothers.”
This seems to me to be an importnat point as well. Irish politics has reflected the civil war divide for the entire history of the 20th century and it still plays a part today (it was certainly a dominant feature of Irish politics in my youth in the 1970s.)
I’m not sure what to make of this for the larger scale issue of democratic consolidation in post-conflict societies but it certainly seems to me that this situation in Ireland at the very least provided a system in which many of the peculiar social structures and institutions of Irish life that animated people such as John McGahern were able to flourish.
I’m willing to hear alternative claims, but I believe that this was generally a negative feature of Irish life. The absence of serious political debate over fundamental social and economic concerns was unhealthy for the development of the state.
Whether this is something to be concerned about in Iraq is less clear to me though I do get the sinking feeling that each killing makes it that much more difficult to move forward.
derrida derider 03.31.06 at 4:27 pm
marc clearly still wants to fight the Irish civil war (deariemie seems to want to fight a later one in Ulster). The Irish civil war killed many more people than the Black and Tans and Michael Collins combined managed; it’s a pity the Brits didn’t shoot the man mainly responsible for it in 1917 when they had every right to. BTW, which particular splinter of the current IRA do you think has the apostolic succession of the 1918 Dail (as though it’s relevant to anything today)?
soru 03.31.06 at 4:53 pm
What the Bushites and HPers are REALLY worried about is a ‘civil war’ situation similar to the first or second Congo war, crossed with the break up of India into India and Pakistan, and then India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Brendan here is quite right. Not often I say that.
Although I’m not sure why it is supposed to be only those groups that would not want that, unless everyone else is supposed to be too tied up in semantic games and visions of horse cavalry charging cannons to be aware of the possibility.
Whatever names you use, there is ‘situation a’ which is not so good, and ‘situation b’ which is really not on the same scale of badness.
Whether or not you think current policy is the best one for avoiding that outcome, if you want to avoid accusations of actually being dumber than Bush, it would be wise to show you understand the difference.
Henry 03.31.06 at 5:12 pm
bq. For years afterwards many of those in Parliament looked across the aisle at the murderers of their fathers, uncles or brothers.
Sometimes they didn’t even have to look that far. My grand-uncle Brian was in the Irregulars, and was killed on the slopes of Ben Bulben under fairly unpleasant circumstances – there’s been some suggestion that he was tortured before he died. His father, my great-grandfather was in the Free State government at the time (his other sons were in the Free State army). I’ve often wondered how he felt when talking with his colleagues in the aftermath.
Brendan 03.31.06 at 5:16 pm
‘Although I’m not sure why it is supposed to be only those groups that would not want that’
Well yes to be fair I suppose it’s reasonable to assume that no one really wants that. The question is, how likely is it? I suppose, with my ‘happy hat’ on I would still concede that it is unlikely, I would also argue that it is possible, and I would also argue that it looks a lot more likely now than it was two years ago.
What I would also argue is that if a ‘real’ civil war breaks out it is very difficult to see how Iraq could stay together at least in its present form. I suppose the other obvious situation that I didn’t mention is the break up of Yugoslavia. Given that Blair’s ‘ethical foreign policy’ begain with the break up of Yugoslavia and the various reactions to that, the idea that he might end up being directly responsible for a similar situation in the middle east is…er…slightly ironic.
P O'Neill 03.31.06 at 5:26 pm
I think Kieran’s initial comment about one of the things that’s different between current and previous civil wars is oil deserves more focus. The US doesn’t care about chaos in Nigeria or elsewhere in West Africa because the oil is offshore and so an enclave is easier to set up. All you need is a few military bases in the region (and one of the many underreported stories these days is the Pentagon cultivation of basing rights in Ghana). But with Iraq, much of the oil is on land and so you need more stability in the extracting country to be able to get at it. I think this creates a bit more of an incentive on the US part not to let things get out of hand, but of course it also creates an incentive to look for a strong leader with a history of holding the country together, someone capable of “crisp, clear decisions” even if they are completely wrong ones. Where could such a person be found?
tequila 03.31.06 at 6:04 pm
Roger – Excellent point about the Kurdish civil war. This was basically an inter-clan war over smuggling/customs revenues, since the KDP and PUK are essentially groupings of peshmerga warlords centered around the Barzani and Talabani clans, respectively (there’s also a Kurdish dialect split, and something of a rural/urban divide as well). Let’s not forget that Barzani invited Saddam’s forces north to crush Talabani’s stronghold of Sulaimaniya while Talabani depended on Iranian support to retake it.
Also I have a hard time calling Kurdistan a democracy when its two main political parties maintain very large private armies and one can be thrown in prison for accusing Massoud Barzani of corruption, of which he is assuredly guilty. There’s also the small matter of the fact that Kurdistan is harboring the KDP, which the last time I looked was considered a terrorist organization which is currently ramping up a small but steady bombing campaign in Turkey. The Turkish military is responding with its customary care.
Keith 03.31.06 at 6:14 pm
I find it odd that the standard by which we judge civil war is the case of the United states. We don’t fight wars that way anymore, and haven’t for sixty years. The last time two massive armies faced each other across a no man’s land was WW II. Since then, it’s all been assymetrical warfare, one well organized army versus guerrilla factions or simply guerilla factions duking it out for supremecy or turf.
Yet, we hear repeatedly that it isn’t Civil War in Iraq, oh no, because well, they aren’t using muskets… or something.
soru 03.31.06 at 6:25 pm
I’m willing to hear alternative claims, but I believe that this was generally a negative feature of Irish life. The absence of serious political debate over fundamental social and economic concerns was unhealthy for the development of the state.
That’s pretty much the thesis of Tom Garvin’s
‘Preventing the Future: Why Was Ireland So Poor for So Long?’
Ireland’s failure to participate in the “golden era†of post-war economic growth was
because two powerful players, the Catholic Church and Eamon de Valera’s Fianna Fáil
party did not want a modern economy with the threats to traditional morality that that
would entail.
Substitute Sistani and Najaf clerics for the Catholic church, and Sadr for de Valera and that’s one pretty plausible picture of the future of Iraq. Hardly ideal, but there are worse options.
JohnLopresti 03.31.06 at 7:52 pm
It is interesting someone else has thought of the Ireland parallel, although sad. Yet, there are similar civil changes in the substrate society involved.
When the wiretap scandal broke I thought of the London license plate monitoring CCTV system which now purportedly is to expand to all roads in Brittain; 3G strife engendering decreased civil liberties.
Libel and sedition law; reporters compelled to divulge confidential sources, jailed.
There is a minor thread of Irish history from century IX which holds monastic historians preserved much literature by dint of their sheer inaccessibility on some desolate isles amid Eire’s near coast waters.
The postinvasion sack of museums in Baghdad and elsewhere in the region certainly was an added disappointment and loss.
We have ample paradigms of colonial powers or warring entities leaving postconflict chaos of various sorts. Hopefully the people of Iraq’s character will scale the heights of self governance in a new way, which is what the current tactical phase seems to be in the US presence, as a way to exit. Already the US government is discussing timelines for pullout.
Barry 04.01.06 at 1:44 am
Brendan: “…but also leading to a situation where one (or all) of these mini-state are less than democratic (or possibly openly totalitarian or authoritarian).”
The right wing of US politics and foreign policy not only does not fear dictators, but vastly prefers them to democracies. Democracies are messy, and fequently have difficulties screwing the majority of their people over for US interests. Dictatorships are neat, and will frequently screw over their people with pleassure, for some money and arms.
Remember that Saddam was in good with the right-wing of US policy, until he became insubordinate. Torture, aggression and mass murder were quite tolerable. The use of chemical weapons was considered to be a PR and market share problem. The latter leading the Reagan administration to try to sell US chemical
weapons techpeaceful civlian technology.duaneg 04.01.06 at 6:14 am
So I read the eXile editorial from the link in #6 above, which was dryly amusing, as usual. Iraqi civil war re-enactments: beautiful surreal madness.
Then to ‘Aqoul where they have a post on a nutter who has started a Libyan civil war reenactment society. Guess what he wants to be doing in 10 or 20 years.
Jim Henley 04.01.06 at 8:11 am
duaneg, the Aqoul article is great! So is the, uh, date stamp.
Henry (not that Henry) 04.01.06 at 11:09 am
Make that Lebanese, not Libyan.
EWI 04.01.06 at 8:57 pm
Posted by dearieme
Why Mr. Myers, it seems that you’ve at long last discovered the Interwebs.
Soru – Garvin is fairly full of it. I seem to remember that he once described the quasi-fascistic Blueshirts (originally members of that self-same “government side”) as a free-speech defence organisation.
Western Dave 04.04.06 at 10:12 am
“The last time two massive armies faced each other across a no man’s land was WW II.”
Keith – glad to know that Korea, various
Arab-Israeli Wars, ongoing Chinese border disputes, N. Vietnam’s invasion of S. Vietnam in ’75 (indeed most of Vietnam war after Tet offensive) etc. never happened. And here I was thinking I had to learn that stuff.
Comments on this entry are closed.