Comments on: Varieties of Civil War

By: Western Dave

Western Dave — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:12:15 +0000

“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.

By: EWI

EWI — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 01:57:20 +0000

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.

By: Henry (not that Henry)

Henry (not that Henry) — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:09:46 +0000

Make that Lebanese, not Libyan.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:11:29 +0000

duaneg, the Aqoul article is great! So is the, uh, date stamp.

By: duaneg

duaneg — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:14:27 +0000

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.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 06:44:02 +0000

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 tech~~ peaceful civlian technology.

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:52:29 +0000

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.

By: soru

soru — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:25:19 +0000

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.

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:14:14 +0000

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.

By: tequila

tequila — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:04:46 +0000

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.

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:26:56 +0000

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?

By: Brendan

Brendan — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:16:45 +0000

‘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.

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:12:41 +0000

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.

By: soru

soru — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:53:34 +0000

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.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:27:14 +0000

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)?