Another warm day here in Dayton. A man could get used to this sort of weather; maybe there'll be a thunderstorm today too. If it stayed just like this all year 'round, I'd be happy. Well, maybe not happy, but it would be a step in that direction. I'd be happy with the weather, let's put it that way.
On to better things than the fleeting notion of "happiness." There's a lot of talk lately about "civil wars" (which surely aren't expressions of happiness), what defines a civil war, and if Iraq is in the throes of a civil war. This is taking place largely in the media where they constantly bicker amongst themselves about pointless things like whether or not they're going to use the word "terrorist" "homicide/suicide bomber" and "jihad." And our politicians (retired or otherwise) are keen on opining. I had really given it much thought, because it doesn't really matter what you call it, so long as you've correctly identified the problem and have a plan (what a novel concept) with which to solve it. Yesterday, a good friend of mine, a colleague if you will, emailed me with the link to an article and I got to actually thinking about the situation there, specifically the nomenclature of said situation. Since I'm about as motivated as a sloth today, I'm going to largely cut and paste my response to his email below. Here's my take:
Until the fighting is between long lines of men in blue and grey uniforms facing each other and firing repeatedly into the opposing line, I cannot in good conscience call it a civil war.
In all seriousness, I think the argument is sort of ridiculous. What we have here is not civil war, it's anarchy, which is defined as: political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control. I'm not entirely convinced that all the parties concerned have power, and by that I mean the desire to form and control a government (call it "legitimate power") and thus the population, in mind. I think a lot of it's centered around, as the article says, "tit-for-tat" violence with no real goal other than eradicating the opposition. And if one of these groups, the radical types, were to ascend to power, there would be little in the way of reconciliation. The other groups would be persecuted OR hunted to extinction. Moderates might be willing to reconcile and such, but the Sadr militia and their ilk probably won't.
Furthermore, I believe that a lot of what we're seeing is simply random violence and crime. People develop a taste for that sort of thing over time - especially when retribution is called for (which it IS in Islam AND Arab tribal mindset). It's a lot like the gang wars of the early 20th century; but with RPGs and IEDs. The people that are in this particular category care nothing of legitimate power, they care only about making a buck or getting a car or a cell phone or worse, killing people. And I don't think it's possible to get an accurate depiction of what is being conducted by whom simply because of the level and scale of the anarchy there. Who knows what is done for criminal reasons, or in conjunction with a larger goal of insurgency or terrorism or freedom fighting.
Frankly, we can call it whatever we want except "mission accomplished."
What will probably happen, perhaps what should happen, is the destruction of Iraq as a nation, and the establishment of separate entities. Will that solve the problem? Who knows. But it would make some of it more manageable and certainly more quantifiable. But it's really not that simple either. Regional powers do NOT want Iraq partitioned like a proverbial hard drive, nor do they want the violence to spill into their borders. Turkey and Iran both have a "Kurd problem", which sounds more grotesque than threatening. Iran likely wants Iraq to remain Iraq because it does not give the Kurds legitimacy (and the Turks would agree), and if the Shia are in power, it gives them significant influence in the country - think Hizbollah but with a seat in the UN and a real, honest to goodness flag that flies over embassies. In terms of geopolitical goals, regionally, some countries do not want a strong, stable Iraq. They're content with it being weakened. But it cannot be fractured, because it would give the Kurds, who are really only one step above Israelis in the eyes of most Arabs, the chance to forge a nation (which the already have for the most part). It would also present the possibility of a "REAL" war, not civil or otherwise, and a REAL war threatens to drag other nations (Saudi Arabia, Jordan) into it overtly. It could be real bad for all parties. I could put forth my version of a worst case scenario, but perhaps I'll leave that for tomorrow.
I think the bottom line is this: the only way for these problems to be solved is for average Iraqis (Arabs, Christians, Kurds, Shia, Sunni…) to want it to be solved so badly that they're willing to risk their lives to do it. I think that only when we leave will we see a true civil war, and thus the end of anarchy, and the possibility of one side, good or bad, coming out on top and establishing order. As it sits right now, we're preventing Darwinism from occurring. We're fighting all sides. We're playing a game here: we're not only fighting all sides, but we're (trying to) playing all sides.
Look at our Civil War. The South arguably had no chance of winning after a certain point, but when they lost the possibility of foreign support, their end was brought about much more swiftly. The British and French sided with the North after Antietam; the South was doomed. Afghanistan was much the same. The Northern Alliance and the Taliban were battling it out right up until 11 Sep 01 (and had been for years); the conflict had reached a sort of stasis, but the killing would have gone on a lot longer. We picked a horse, and rode it to victory, and until recently, stability. Perhaps that's what we should do: pick a horse. Unfair? Perhaps. But this is real politik if it's anything, and real politik is not fair.
Just my opinion mingled amongst the thousands of other opinions. Of course, maybe I'm saying what no one else wants to say. Our "PC-ness" might doom us. Let me put forth this: the Roman and British Empires did not last as long as they did because they were politically correct. It's because they did what they needed to do. Are we an Empire? That's another story all together, and one that's really quite moot.
So there you have it.
Word of the Day: Heterodox (adjective): 1. contrary to or differing from some acknowledged standard, especially in church doctrine or dogma; unorthodox; 2. holding unorthodox opinions or doctrines. Perhaps a fitting word today considering I would be flogged if I put forth the above ideas.
On This Day in History: Battle of Sinop - Imperial Russian Navy destroys the Ottoman fleet at Sinop in northern Turkey (Crimean War) (1853). This war is seen as the first modern war and would change the way war (and the treatment of wounded soldiers - Florence Nightingale) would be executed. Cigarettes were even invented.
"Meat-eating orchids forgive no one just yet. Cut myself on angel's hair and baby's breath. Broken hymen of your highness, I'm left black. Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back." - Nirvana, "Heart-Shaped Box".
And so no one thinks Rodney Adkins is a genius philosophe (maybe he's a philosophaster): "If you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
No comments:
Post a Comment