Tuesday, March 21, 2006

What makes a civil war?

Back in February, Bill Roggio gave you his thoughts.

Today, our editorial board shared their thoughts on the subject:

How, exactly, do you define civil war? In America's case, it was the north squaring off against the south. One side wore blue uniforms and other wore gray. One side carried the stars and stripes, the other the stars and bars.

If only that were the case in Iraq, where each day 50 to 60 Iraqis are killed by other Iraqis. Their outward appearance is pretty much the same. They aren't in uniform and they generally do not carry their nation's flag.

It's the hate and anger inside that is making the difference, but that is a distinction President Bush and his top advisors don't seem to recognize.


Over the weekend, Wretchard at The Belmont Club posted in reply to the BBC story quoting the former prime minister of Iraq:

A civil war is a visible event whose indicators includes the insubordination of armed units, mass refugee flows, the rise of rival governments, etc. The test is whether those events are being observed. What famous individuals say about a situation is a shortcut for encapsulating a factual assessment; it describes reality as public figures see it but is not the reality itself. That remains a mystery until developments unfold. One interesting indicator of how the US military sees the situation are its plans to turn over large parts of the country to Iraqi forces.

I hear echoes of Bill Roggio's comments here: there are actual events that are unmistakeable in terms of their meaning that define a civil war. A point that Hugh Hewitt hammers home in a related post today: It was civil war in the former Yugolsavia that prompted American intervention because the slaughter was unacceptable. It was a civil war in Rwanda in which the U.S. did not intervene that causes shame to this day. Civil war in Sudan --and continuing ethnic violence in Darfur-- are among the world's current shames.

If "civil war" is to mean anything, it must not be attached to a country in which all major parties are currently negotiating the formation of a government after three successful elections, and in which the deeply suspicious groups have agreed on a the formation of a national security council.

At the risk of oversimplifying an analysis of what really is "civil war," I think it's fair to say that you know it when you see it.

No comments:

  • Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Daniels
  • Evangelical Outpost
  • One Hand Clapping
  • Camp Katrina
  • TPMCafe
  • Dodger Thoughts
  • Boy of Summer
  • Irish Pennants
  • tabletalk
  • Fire McCain
  • My Sandmen
  • Galley Slaves
  • Michelle Malkin
  • myelectionanalysis
  • Iraq the Model
  • Mystery Pollster
  • A Bellandean! God, Country, Heritage
  • Right Truth
  • The Fourth Rail
  • Counterterrorism Blog
  • Just One Minute
  • Broken Masterpieces
  • Kudlow's Money Politic$
  • Econopundit
  • Tapscott's Copy Desk
  • The Blue State Conservatives
  • Palousitics
  • Christian Conservative
  • Outside the Beltway
  • The Belmont Club
  • Froggy Ruminations
  • The Captain's Journal
  • Argghh!!!
  • Chickenhawk Express
  • Confederate Yankee
  • Reasoned Audacity
  • Taking Notes
  • ThisDamnBlog
  • Three Knockdown Rule
  • Dogwood Pundit
  • Dumb Looks Still Free
  • Unfettered Blather
  • Cut to the Chase
  • Alabama Improper
  • Austin Bay Blog
  • Michael Yon-Online
  • The Trump Blog
  • A Lettor of Apology
  • GM Fastlane Blog


  • Powered by Blogger

    Listed on BlogShares Who Links Here