A Civil War by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet
OK. You hear loose talk in the news and on the radio and TV about Iraq moving toward civil war. Well, given all the chaos and killing going on over there between Iraqis, independent of any rage against the on-going US military occupation, what really constitutes a civil war? Most Americans would say that the situation over there is hopeless and that we are already in the middle of a civil war between warring Sunni and Shiite factions battling for dominance. I, like many others, consider the situation over there pretty hopeless and completely chaotic, but chaos does not equate with civil war. By legal definition, a civil war is where top government officials representing different factions declare open hostilities and organized warfare against one another. A great description of the warning signs of civil war in Iraq can be found on Bill Roggio's Fourth Rail website.
Well, those definitions of civil war are all well and good, but what happens when the real rulers are not part of the government? A case in point are the newly installed "democratic" governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and (yes, even) in Palestine? In these other places, there is basically little or no real government and the countries are actually ruled by militias, warlords, or other local strongman groups who are deeply embedded in the local population. These groups serve as the police force, judiciary, and in some cases, like Hezbollah and Hamas, the provider of crucial community social services, and they are much more "real" in terms of power than those individuals in the federal governments. How can there be a civil war when there is really no truly established government? I would submit that in Iraq, although there were some shamish like elections to make the Bush Administration look good, that there is no REAL government. No government can rule without a means to enforce laws, or prosecute injustice, or provide a population with necessary services. I would have to say that the Iraqi government falls short on all of those necessary ingredients. So while there is not the open fracturing in the Parliament, just yet, there is enough fracturing of the Iraqi nation through its various ethnic groups and their one-group militias to put it in smack in civil war status.
So if we say Iraq is in civil war, what options does that give the US? Well, the US could just withdraw and let the power of natural selection take over and let the strongest survive. Out of this a ruthless strongman or religious regime would come to power, through strong arm tactics, and finally bring order to the country. It would not be pretty, just as Saddam's rise to power and his retention of it was not. However, for the average everyday Iraqi it would mean a return to stability and reduction of the overt fear of randomly being blown up or shot. If the US stays, it is going to have to not only disarm the present cadre of militias (all of them, because disarming only one just allows the others to get stronger or have others come in to fill the void), but also reprogram the entire Iraqi population so they do not seek sectarian revenge - and that is just plain unrealistic given the emotional state of the Iraqi population at this time. A third option would be to perhaps turn the whole bloody mess over to the UN and have them try and sort it out. Although most people feel that this would be a disaster, how could it be more of a disaster than it already is? And, you know, it might give the UN a chance to actually have to come to grips with a first real test case of its being able to do the right thing on the world stage. It botched Uganda in the '80's, Rwanda in the '90's, and right now is doing a number on Sudan, but those are all in Africa where the Caucasian peoples of the world really don't give a damn. It would be different in Iraq. Iraq is a major oil and natural gas resource, it is also a lynch pin in Middle East politics which have been a major problem for Caucasian's since the Crusades. It is also within striking distance of their most holy religious shrines. I say let the UN have a crack at solving the problem in Iraq. How could it be any worse? And, you know, the final decision would be one that is global. If it actually works, maybe we might be on to something.
Well, those definitions of civil war are all well and good, but what happens when the real rulers are not part of the government? A case in point are the newly installed "democratic" governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and (yes, even) in Palestine? In these other places, there is basically little or no real government and the countries are actually ruled by militias, warlords, or other local strongman groups who are deeply embedded in the local population. These groups serve as the police force, judiciary, and in some cases, like Hezbollah and Hamas, the provider of crucial community social services, and they are much more "real" in terms of power than those individuals in the federal governments. How can there be a civil war when there is really no truly established government? I would submit that in Iraq, although there were some shamish like elections to make the Bush Administration look good, that there is no REAL government. No government can rule without a means to enforce laws, or prosecute injustice, or provide a population with necessary services. I would have to say that the Iraqi government falls short on all of those necessary ingredients. So while there is not the open fracturing in the Parliament, just yet, there is enough fracturing of the Iraqi nation through its various ethnic groups and their one-group militias to put it in smack in civil war status.
So if we say Iraq is in civil war, what options does that give the US? Well, the US could just withdraw and let the power of natural selection take over and let the strongest survive. Out of this a ruthless strongman or religious regime would come to power, through strong arm tactics, and finally bring order to the country. It would not be pretty, just as Saddam's rise to power and his retention of it was not. However, for the average everyday Iraqi it would mean a return to stability and reduction of the overt fear of randomly being blown up or shot. If the US stays, it is going to have to not only disarm the present cadre of militias (all of them, because disarming only one just allows the others to get stronger or have others come in to fill the void), but also reprogram the entire Iraqi population so they do not seek sectarian revenge - and that is just plain unrealistic given the emotional state of the Iraqi population at this time. A third option would be to perhaps turn the whole bloody mess over to the UN and have them try and sort it out. Although most people feel that this would be a disaster, how could it be more of a disaster than it already is? And, you know, it might give the UN a chance to actually have to come to grips with a first real test case of its being able to do the right thing on the world stage. It botched Uganda in the '80's, Rwanda in the '90's, and right now is doing a number on Sudan, but those are all in Africa where the Caucasian peoples of the world really don't give a damn. It would be different in Iraq. Iraq is a major oil and natural gas resource, it is also a lynch pin in Middle East politics which have been a major problem for Caucasian's since the Crusades. It is also within striking distance of their most holy religious shrines. I say let the UN have a crack at solving the problem in Iraq. How could it be any worse? And, you know, the final decision would be one that is global. If it actually works, maybe we might be on to something.
