When I mused about whether Iraq was in “civil war” or not I was doing so from a political science perspective–asking the question as to what conditions appropriately constitute “civil war”–and as I noted in the post, I have long found an adequate definition of the term to be problematic. Is “civil war” a genus or specie of political violence? It could be that “civil war” is a generic term, or a genus that encompasses any widespread political violence within a given state boundary.
However, I find that that is too broad a usage for the term (and, quite frankly, would mean that Iraq pretty much has been involved in civil war for three years).
I prefer to think of “civil war” as a species of the genus “collective political violence” that encompasses, as I noted on Sunday:
I have always considered civil war to be a case of two clearly defined armed factions utilized fairly high levels of widespread violence against one another in order to capture control of the state, or to allow for autonomous control, to the point of independence, of a substantial amount of territory.
An imperfect definition, to be sure, but a workable one. In general I am interested in the ability to differentiate between types of political violence, not to make a political point–which is what most discussions of civil war in Iraq are aimed at doing at the moment.
Clearly, the critics of the war want to call the situation “civil war” and the administration doesn’t: (via the NYT: On Anniversary, Bush and Cheney See Iraq Success.
As such, I would counsel against getting too wrapped up in the term, as it has become politically charged. The truth of the matter is that, no matter what we call it, there is serious political violence taking place in Iraq at the moment and that fact cannot be ignored.
And beyond politics and going to policy, there is a need for serious, dispassionate categorization of the violence so that appropriate responses can be designed and applied.
However, and again: I think that the words “civil war” from the lips of politicians and commentators (as well as its usage in the press in general) has to be regarded as one that is substantially tainted with politics.
Sphere: Related Content
March 20th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
I think that you are absolutely correct in your assessment of how the term is being used as a political term. Whether they are or not, certainly depends on who you support. If it is, then it has been pretty much from the beginning. I personally do not see a lot of difference between now, and when Zarqawi started his brash and brazen campaign of terror. But if it’s not, it has to be as close as it possibly can be, without actually being.
Your definition may not be the definition of every last public policy organization and think tank in America, but it is practical. It certainly works for me.
The only thing I would add to this is, if the violence isn’t part of a civil war, then it must be the objective of those perpetrators.
Good post sir.
March 21st, 2006 at 1:40 am
Can there only be two sides in a civil war?
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:06 pm
in order for it to be a civil war.. both sides must be recognized citizens of the country… unless al queda is sanctioned by iraq… there will be NO civil war.. america will just aid iraq in its stuggle with terrorism!!!