The David Patten article in The Middle East Quarterly has been making the rounds arguing against using the term "Civil War" to describe the violence in Iraq. Yglesias briefly (too briefly) discusses it here. My thoughts? Yglesias has it right when he says the key to Patten's argument is:
"However, it does not follow that Iraq is in a civil war. While the government is weak, there is no political force presenting it with a serious challenge. Iraq is, indeed, an unstable nation, but there is little danger of regime change, the ultimate purpose of a civil war. "
In danger of being redundant, and verbose (I've already covered this topic for what feels like a million times), I'll say that, in terms of Patten's thesis, there are political forces seeking to usurp the Iraq regime, although they aren't presented in the same terms as in the US Civil War, nor are they dual forces: meaning that the "brigades" are numerous although they have one singular goal, which is to install some sort of Islamic theocracy. Is there danger of regime change? Does that matter? Let's say that the Confederacy had of been a "puppet force." Even a puppet force can do damage, which is the realistic issue facing Iraq. But if it does matter to you then yes, there is a danger--and a serious danger. Whenever someone picks up a gun and has an opinion of regime change that is serious and persuasive one must think of it in "serious" terms.
I think that what gets people confused in talking about a civil war in Iraq--or really anything about Iraq--is the inertia that we have in the US in talking about military action. You can see it in the metaphors and comparisons we make about Iraq to Vietnam and World War II. No longer are we fighting another state or government. Instead we are fighting against ideas that come like a fog, a miasma of rhetoric and gun fire. The only thing Bush ever got right about all of this is that this is a war for the "hearts and minds of the people." And then he screwed up the tactics. What were seeing by the sectarian forces in Iraq is an ongoing attempt of destabilization in the region that's funded by Iran, Hezbollah and Syria and helped by the US's continued presence in Iraq. According to our old tactics, we should press forward, ala surge, but in this new game, this Chinese finger puzzle, our best move is to back off and release the pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment