Via the LAT: Wave of retaliation sweeps Iraq:
Iraq’s civil war worsened Friday as Shiite and Sunni Arabs engaged in retaliatory attacks after coordinated car bombings that killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood the day before. A main Shiite political faction threatened to quit the government, a move that probably would cause its collapse and plunge the nation deeper into disarray.
Interestingly, this is the first time I have seen the violence directly and without fanfare referred to as a “civil war” in a news piece. I am still uneasy with the term as an accurate description, as long as the violence is primarily in the Baghdad area (recognizing that it is not solely located there) and as long as the government doesn’t dissolve itself, I am not sure that we have hit a true civil war as yet. Once the factions array themselves in such a way were it is clear that there is obvious fight for control of the state (or, more accurately, the right to try and build a state) then I don’t think that we have hit civil war.
Regardless of semantics or conceptual categorization, there is little doubt that the violence is serious and all indications are that it will escalate.
One wonders when (and perhaps if) the violence will move beyond sectarian point-scoring to issues of control of territory. Clearly the goals at the moment are not concentrated and focused numerous goals (and not necessarily on a set of clear strategic goals). We have the following: harassing the US presence, disrupting state formation, and striking at sectarian opponents (killing, kidnapping and destroying property).
Of course, the cleansing of particular neighborhood of Sunni or Shiites could be seen (and may well be) attempts at taking and securing territory. It currently comes across as a blatant expression of sectarian hatred as much as anything, however. I suppose what it ultimately unclear to me is the degree to which those currently perpetrating the sectarian violence have long-term goals beyond exacting revenge/punishment/etc. on their religious adversaries.
Certainly where I the Kurds I would want nothing to do with a unified Iraq.
You are right, cleansing of some Sunni neighborhoods by Shiites is being down in the name of security. But I think there is also a move in Eastern Baghdad to ease the population pressure in Sadr City (2.5 million in a city built for 500k) by kicking out Sunni. Shia kick out the Sunni through murder or intimidation, and they can then sell the house for profit, move in themselves, give it to a loyal Shia to reinforce that loyalty, or use the house as a safe house for various illegal or insurgent activities. Sectarian violence, hatred and “security” is simply a nice excuse for their actions.
They do have long term goals, total Shia domination of Baghdad. it may not be a realistic goal, but the Shia do want it, and why not, they dominate the government and they will likely get their own autonomous state in the south once Federalism is approved.
Comment by bg — Saturday, November 25, 2024 @ 4:32 pm
[…] Keegan’s article can be found here: Opinions: ‘What is a civil war?’. The piece is worth reading and notes an issue that I think is missing at this point (and one I mentioned yesterday, although Keegan does a better job): The third principal condition, authority, is just as important. The point of the violence must be sovereign rule: combatants must be trying either to seize national power or to maintain it. This is the difference between, for example, the Russian civil war and the tribal rebellions now taking place in 14 of India’s 28 states, or the late 1990s insurgency of Subcomandante Marcos in Mexico. Revenge, struggles for rights, mass criminality and positioning for economic gain are not sufficient, individually or severally. The opponents must be fighting to rule. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » More on Iraq and Civil War — Sunday, November 26, 2024 @ 10:40 am
[…] Keegan’s article can be found here: Opinions: ‘What is a civil war?’. The piece is worth reading and notes an issue that I think is missing at this point (and one I mentioned yesterday, although Keegan does a better job): The third principal condition, authority, is just as important. The point of the violence must be sovereign rule: combatants must be trying either to seize national power or to maintain it. This is the difference between, for example, the Russian civil war and the tribal rebellions now taking place in 14 of India’s 28 states, or the late 1990s insurgency of Subcomandante Marcos in Mexico. Revenge, struggles for rights, mass criminality and positioning for economic gain are not sufficient, individually or severally. The opponents must be fighting to rule. […]
Pingback by More on Iraq and Civil War « My Views on News — Friday, December 1, 2024 @ 3:50 pm