There is No Civil War in Iraq
By Aaron Goldstein (11/30/06)
Over the past several days various media organizations and public officials have begun describing the War in Iraq as "a civil war."
It began with NBC when Matt Lauer of The Today Show announced on November 27th, “NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted – that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas – can now be characterized as a civil war.”
Other media outlets such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times are now describing the War in Iraq as a civil war. Bill Keller, Executive Editor of The New York Times stated, “It’s hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of a civil war.” CNN’s Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware offered, “If this isn’t a civil war, I don’t know what is.”
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stopped short of calling the conflict a civil war but did say that “we are almost there.” Former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed no such reservations when speaking before a business forum in the United Arab Emirates on November 29th. Powell told his audience, “I would call it a civil war.” He added that world leaders should also accept this state of affairs.
There is only one problem with Powell’s directive. There is only problem with Annan’s rhetorical global positioning system. There is only one problem with Ware’s knowing a civil war when he sees it. There is only one problem with Keller’s editorial prerogative. There is only one problem with Lauer’s declaration that this is a spat over the Tigris. They are all wrong. There is no civil war in Iraq.
This is not to deny there is violence in Iraq with a skyrocketing death toll on both sides. This is not to deny that Shiites are killing Sunnis and that Sunnis are killing Shiites. This is not to deny that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not in control of the situation. This is not to deny that things have not gone according to plan. This is not to deny the grim situation the United States faces so long as it is in Iraq. The War in Iraq can be characterized in many ways. A civil war is not one of them.
At its basic, a civil war is fought between citizens of the same country to gain power over a specific territory. Again, Iraqi Shiites are killing Iraqi Sunnis and vice versa. But they are not doing it alone. Both the Shiites and the Sunnis are killing each other, as well as U.S. and Coalition troops, with external assistance. The Shiites are being aided by Iran and the Sunnis are being aided by al Qaeda and might well be assisted by Saudi Arabia (more on that later). If not for the efforts of a terrorist sponsoring state and an international terrorist organization the death toll in Iraq would be far less worrying. Their actions in Iraq are those of active participants not disinterested observers. For this reason the War in Iraq cannot be construed as a civil war.
It is curious that the New York Times would describe the War in Iraq as a civil war when its own pages suggest otherwise. In an article that appeared in the Times on November 28th titled, “Hezbollah Said to Help Shiite Army in Iraq”, an anonymous senior U.S. intelligence official stated that between 1,000 to 2,000 members of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army and smaller Shiite militias had received training in Lebanon by Hezbollah and that Hezbollah operatives had traveled to Iraq to assist in this process. This corroborates a claim made by one of the Madhi commanders who anonymously stated that 300 of his members had received training from Hezbollah in Lebanon. When CIA Director Michael Hayden testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month he referred “to the ill effect that the Iranians are having on the situation in Iraq.” The article goes on to state:
American officials say the Iranians have also provided direct support to Shiite militias in Iraq, including explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs, and training for several thousand fighters, mostly in Iran. The training is carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, they say. (www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28military.html?hp&ex=1164776...)
How can anyone describe the War in Iraq as a civil war if Iran is providing training, armaments and by extension funding to Muqtada al-Sadr and other Shiite militias?
How can the War in Iraq be characterized as a civil war when it has the effect of advancing Iran’s national interests? Those national interests would be asserting dominion over the Middle East through the control of Iraq’s natural resources, namely its oil, augmented by the development of their own nuclear weapons program. What countries would be harmed greatly by Iran’s agenda? Well, ultimately all countries would be harmed if President Ahmadinejad were to use a nuclear weapon. But Ahmadinejad’s biggest beefs are with the United States and Israel. In a letter to the American people on November 29th, Ahmadinejad, while referring to the Zionists five times, warned, “The U.S. governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.” Simply put, the United States must withdraw from Iraq, abandon Israel and surrender to the Islamic Republic of Iran and live under Sharia law or face death.
Matt Lauer might think there’s a civil war in Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly doesn’t.
It is also important not to forget al Qaeda in the equation. Since the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June, Sunni extremism has taken a back seat especially given al-Sadr’s influence (if not control) over the Maliki government. However, al Qaeda forces have continued to carry out attacks in Iraq against Shiites as well as against U.S. and Coalition troops. It should be noted that al Zarqawi’s successor, Abu Ayyab al-Masri is an Egyptian, not an Iraqi. Zarqawi was a Jordanian. In truth, al Qaeda is an organization without country that wishes to spread global jihad. After all, al Qaeda brought its brand of mayhem to our shores not so long ago. Any armed hostility involving al Qaeda cannot be dismissed as a mere civil war. To do so would suggest tal Qaeda’s sphere influence is confined to the Sunni triangle.
The idea has been put forth that if the United States should withdraw from Iraq that Saudi Arabia would step into the breach to assist the Sunnis. Nawaf Obaid, managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh as well as an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, put forward this hypothesis in an article that appeared in the November 29th edition of The Washington Post. Obaid, who has advised the Saudi government in the past, advocates the Saudi government do for the Sunnis what “Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.” In the article titled “Stepping Into Iraq: Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves”, Obaid argues:
To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran’s militarist actions in the region. (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277_...)
Maybe it’s just me but the idea of Iran and Saudi Arabia duking it out in Iraq does not befit the description of a civil war. It would be one thing if fighting broke out in Iraq among Sunnis and Shiites and had sustained itself without outside assistance. However, there are external forces that have a vested interest in seeing these Muslim sects kill one another in Iraq. As such the fighting between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq has far too many ramifications for other powers in the Middle East, and for that matter the United States as explained earlier, to be characterized as a civil war.
So why are American media outlets and prominent public figures beginning to call the War in Iraq a civil war?
Simply put it is an easy way out that would appeal to broad spectrum of the American populace. Calling it a civil war will obviously appeal to the Left which never wanted to have anything to do with Iraq in the first place. And by the first place I mean in 1991 when U.S. and Coalition forces expelled Iraq from Kuwait. Calling it a civil war will also appeal to those on the Right who do not believe that our foreign policy consists of getting involved in the internal affairs of countries thousands of miles and oceans way from our shores.
By calling it a civil war we will have definitively stated that Iraq is not America’s problem much less its concern. However, we cannot simply wish way the War in Iraq by calling it something else. To do so would be nothing more than a cop out. While the United States must one day leave Iraq it cannot do so now even in an incremental manner. Our enemies would rightly interpret it a sign of surrender. Ahmadinejad and al Qaeda might hate each other but if neither believe that the United States will stop them what is there to prevent them form killing each other and, in time, the rest of the civilized world? To paraphrase Burke, by doing nothing evil will have triumphed.
There is no question that things in Iraq have not turned out the way we would have wanted them. However, to simply call it a civil war is no more useful than arguing that we ought not have entered Iraq in the first place or start waxing nostalgic about Saddam Hussein. That ship left port nearly four years ago. Iraqis might never embrace democracy or at least our practice of it. Iraq might very well be partitioned into separate entities and that will create its own set of problems. Lost in all this are the Iraqi Kurds who more or less have their act together or at least have it together as much as one can in that part of the world. One can be sure that Turkey will be up in arms should the Kurds be given a portion of northern Iraq to call home.
The media and public officials might view labeling Iraq a civil war as an easy way out. But there is no easy way out of Iraq. We are in Iraq for the long haul whether we like it or not. The War in Iraq has had more than its share of unintended consequences. Mark my words so would a withdrawal done under any circumstances other than our own terms. Iraq is our problem. Walking away from it while chanting civil war is not a viable solution.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
