Is It Civil War?

The report is basically the press and politicians debating. That debate isn't very intelligent unfortunately. The MSM and the Anti-war groups screech that it's a full-fledged civil war, though they only have their reporting to base this on. Oh, and don't forget the polls. Obviously, if the US public thinks it's a civil war it must be so.

In statements to reporters, appearances on Sunday morning TV news shows and an op-ed article, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. George W. Casey, the senior U.S. military commander in Iraq, declared that the United States was making progress toward stabilizing Iraq and defusing sectarian tensions. But those upbeat assessments faced sharp skepticism from U.S. legislators from both parties and from a senior Iraqi political leader, former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who has been a staunch American ally. They contended that Iraq was now in the midst of a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The issue of whether Iraq's sectarian fighting constitutes a civil war has taken on political significance. Polls have shown American support for the Iraq war dropping since the bombing last month of a Shiite shrine in Samarra led to widespread communal violence. Strategists in both parties have said that Bush will have a more difficult time sustaining support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq if the public believes that troops are caught in the middle of a civil war. On a day of sweeping arguments from both sides, the most dramatic comments came from Allawi. "It is unfortunate that we are in civil war," the former prime minister told the British Broadcasting Corp. "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." Allawi added: "Maybe we have not reached the point of no return yet. But we are moving toward this point. We are in a terrible civil conflict now."

I would take what Allawi says with a grain of salt. He obviously has political motivations to have the world believe there is civil war. Unfortunately, the facts are not very strong. No prolonged conflicts or battles, just small scale attacks and retaliations. And even the retaliations have been muted or controlled by the sect leaders.

George Will, who has been especially dour as of late, has recently commented on the conflict quoting Lt. General Michael Maples and comparing the conflict with the Spanish Civil War.

Maples delicately says that although Iraq is not "at this time" in a civil war, "the underlying conditions" for such a war "are present." But civil wars do not usually begin with an identifiable event, such as the firing on Fort Sumter, or proceed to massed, uniformed forces clashing in battles like Shiloh. Iraq's civil war -- which looks more like Spain's in the 1930s -- began months ago.

In Spain, the security forces were united and in three years were victorious. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. John Abizaid, U.S. commander in the Middle East, recently said that Iraqi forces would cope with a civil war "to the extent they're able to" (Rumsfeld) and "they'll handle it with our help" (Abizaid). Their problematic assumption is that Iraq's security forces have a national loyalty and will not fracture along the fissures of Iraq's sectarian society.

This is fairly astute in my opinion. Maples is probably correct in that Iraq isn't in a civil war, but is likely walking that narrow ledge beside what could turn into such a conflict. Iraqi forces may be sufficient to stop or suppress such a civil war, but only if they themselves don't fall into the conflict. The comparison to the Spanish Civil War is probably apt in that it's not a conflict that has an obvious clear-cut start date. Though Will's belief that the civil war started months ago I think is guess work at best. I'd say that there is still insufficient indications to make such a definitive statement. In fact, I'd say you'd have to wait for more evidence to see if the present clashes and reprisals actually comes to a widespread conflict, like the Spanish Civil War, before you can definitively call it a civil war.

This doesn't mean that the US military doesn't have to treat the activity as the start of a civil war and take the necessary actions to suppress the problem. The suppression in itself may be what is needed to allow a political solution to come to grips.

Barry Rubin has a fairly realistic article on the potential of civil war.

There's been a big scare about the possibility of civil war in Iraq after a bloody terrorist attack on a Shi'ite Muslim holy site. With relief, despite a wave of violence after this event, everyone concluded that no civil war was starting now.

Yet this immediate relief should be coupled with a realistic assessment: There will almost certainly be a civil war in the not too distant future. More precisely, there already is a civil war going on that is merely masked by the presence of Western forces.

Insurgents - a blend of Saddam Hussein supporters, pro-Osama bin Laden Islamists, and Sunni communal nationalists - claim to be fighting the foreign "occupation" but are actually battling fellow Iraqis to ensure that no government led by the Shi'ite majority will succeed in ruling Iraq.

In what is still a relatively one-sided civil war, the aggressors are Sunni terrorist forces backed directly by Syria, hailed as heroes in media throughout the Arab world and receiving both volunteers and funds from abroad, especially Saudi Arabia. They attack American troops, target the Iraqi government, and often kill Shi'ite civilians. Simultaneously, they try to intimidate other Sunnis to keep them from participating in the government, or even voting. The insurgents attack when and where they choose.

On the other side are those relatively satisfied with the post-Saddam order. This includes the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites of the center and south. These forces have come together to run the regime so far.

Unfortunately, the Iraqi government seems to be the major stumbling block in this whole thing. No firm control is being taken because no government is being formed. The squabbling is making the government look weak, which in fact it likely will be. The religious and ethnic fractures are going to remain. That doesn't mean that they can't form a government, it just means that it will always be unresponsive and divided on all topics.

From the original article, there is likely a way to force the government to at least form and get underway.

But Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the United States needed to move more aggressively to resolve the long-running negotiations over a new government, perhaps by threatening to begin removing U.S. forces if the Iraqis could not agree on a consensus government.

"The only leverage we have is our troop presence," Reed said on ABC's "This Week."

"And I think we have to make it clear to the Iraqi political leaders that if they're not able or willing to come together -… that our presence can't be indefinite there."

This leverage is apparently needed at this time. Pushing the government into some form of consensus will at least give them some place to start. The fact that they just are standing about and bickering about forming the government gets nothing done. It may not be the most efficient or diplomatic of governments, but they will at least start the ball rolling. In fact, that could very well begin unification if it is apparent that they will soon have less of a shield to protect them. They will then have to protect themselves.

Back to the Rubin article:

IT IS ESSENTIAL to understand that the two issues underlying a future civil war are not misunderstandings or easily negotiated differences of opinion but are absolutely fundamental: Who will rule and what kind of society Iraq will be. Nice as it is to hope that everyone can get along and share power, Iraq is not the kind of society where this is likely to happen. Either the Sunnis or Shi'ites, most likely the latter, will have the upper hand.

Iraq will either be a pluralist, Islamic-flavored, Shi'ite-led state with an elected government and a large element of Kurdish autonomy in the north (perhaps the best likely alternative), a radical Shi'ite Islamist republic with lots of Iranian influence, or a radical Sunni Islamist republic. Most Iraqis think these are distinctions worth fighting for.

As long as American forces are present the civil war will probably be staved off, but the insurgency will continue. However, the days for this situation are numbered. President George W. Bush maintains that the Iraqi government forces are gradually able to take on more of the fighting.

Stability is what must be established before the US can leave. It doesn't have to be perfect. But it has to be more than what is present to date. The question is, can the Iraqi government and military find sufficient self-interest in the present solution to force this stability?

The Sunni's are a bit of a surprise in their failure to understand that they will be the extreme losers if stability isn't formed. Self-preservation should be the motivation for them to get this government under way. They may not get a completely equitable set of terms in the new government, but if they delay too much longer, isn't it likely that they will get even worse terms?

The Kurds are in a way playing both sides. They are the least effected by the issue of civil war, thought they won't be completely untouched. Physical locality at present gives them some level of protection and their present autonomy doesn't give anyone major leverage to make them play nice.

The Shia have the majority and the most historical complaints. Now that they have a system that lets the majority control, I see very little reason for them to go out of their way to accommodate the Sunni. Though civil war will have drastic effects on the Shia public. That effect is less though than what the Sunni's will have. And past grievances make it obvious that they have little inclination to allow too much control to the Sunni's.

Will there be civil war? I'm going to guess, not for a while, and then only after a majority of US troops have left. Unfortunately, it really looks like the religious divisions and tribal variations are not going bring this to a clean conclusion. What the extent of the civil war will be is very hard to say.

Let's hope I'm wrong.