Here's some light weekend reading, by Lee Harris at Tech Central Station. This is well worth reading when we consider our next move in the Iraqi theater.
On the Brink; But of What?
Since the wanton destruction of the golden dome of the Shi'ite shrine in Baghdad, there has been an escalating sense that Iraq is on the brink, but the question is: on the brink of what? Warnings are flying about that Iraq is on the verge of civil war -- but what do we mean by this phrase, a civil war?
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
Light reading, huh.
Well, that's just lovely.
The writer assumes that this will purely be tribal anarchy which I think is only partially right.
There will also be non tribal influences both state sponsored and otherwise.
Probably very similar to Lebanon of the mid/late seventies.
Lee Harris didn't do much for me. I'm probably antagonistic towards his pro-confederacy leanings, but I think this is plain wrong:
No, its quite possible for Iran to take sides in favor of shiites, or Saudi Arabia or Syria or Turkey in favor of sunnis (or the latter taking sides against kurds), either directly or through proxies. That's the risk of a fault line war.
Hasn't happened yet. Might have happened even if the U.S. and its allies hadn't intervened.
THE movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, alleged to have played a role in the anti-Sunni violence over the last few days, publicly made peace with political and religious Sunni leaders overnight.
Four sheikhs from the Sadr movement made a "pact of honour" with the conservative Sunni Muslim Scholars Association, and called for an end to attacks on places of worship, the shedding of blood and condemning any act leading to sedition.
The agreement was made in the particularly symbolic setting of Baghdad's premier Sunni mosque Abu Hanifa where the Shiite sheikhs prayed under the guidance of Sunni imam Abdel Salam al-Qubaissi.
The meeting was broadcast on television and the religious leaders all "condemned the blowing up of the Shiite mausoleum of Samarra as much as the acts of sabotage against the houses of God as well as the assassinations and terrorisation of Muslims".
The statement made reference to the key concerns of both communities with the violent aftermath to the attack on the Samarra mausoleum which saw more than 119 people die.
The sheikhs condemned "those who excommunicate Muslims" a reference to the "takfireen" or Islamist extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who justify killing fellow Muslims by declaring them non-Muslims.
"It is not permitted to spill the Iraqi blood and to touch the houses of God," said the statement, adding that any mosques taken over by another community should be returned.
Read the Rest
#4 P D Shaw:
I don't think indicating that the expression "the War between the States" has descriptive merit constitutes "Confederate leanings", particularly since Harris was using that expression to draw a distinction.
You might argue (as the North and Lincoln did) with the notion that the Confederacy was never an independent nation, and that might even be true; but claiming that it did its very best to act as one is not a matter of "Confederate leanings", it appears to be historical fact.
Can you point to anything else Lee Harris has written that supports your claim? Or are you, as the Polish proverb says, "making a shawl out of an old sock"? There's a lot of that going around. I've done it myself. I'm trying to do better.
Nort
PS: I'm not pro-Confederacy; I am anti-slavery. Do I even need to say those things? I guess I do. sigh
#4 P D Shaw:
I don't think indicating that the expression "the War between the States" has descriptive merit constitutes "Confederate leanings", particularly since Harris was using that expression to draw a distinction.
You might disagree (as the North and Lincoln did) with the notion that the Confederacy was ever an independent nation, and it might indeed be that it never was; but saying that it did its very best to act as one is not a matter of "Confederate leanings", it appears to be historical fact.
Can you point to anything else Lee Harris has written that supports your claim? Or are you, as the Polish proverb says, "making a shawl out of an old sock"? There's a lot of that going around. I've done it myself. I'm trying to do better.
Nort
PS: I'm not pro-Confederacy; I am anti-slavery. Do I even need to say those things? I guess I do. sigh
PPS: I agree that the "impossible to take sides" thing is false in its most general reading. I think what he is trying to say is that "Good Guys" will find it difficult to take sides, and will wind up throwing up their hands in disgust.
He might be right about that. If that is what he meant, I wish he'd been plainer.
Of course, this will also be heralded by those who want the current administration to have mud on its face -- with some justification. It's a mess. Hard to predict just how messy, how fast, it will get. But the combinatorics of rage could really mess things up, Yugoslavia-bad. Harris is right about that.
Lee Harris would have done better if he had compared the situation in Iraq today to the situation in the American South after the American Civil War ended.
That's when the KKK was formed to intimidate newly freed and enfranchised African-Americans in the South. This isn't a perfect analogy because the KKK was trying to influence and win elections through violence.
The terrorist groups operating in Iraq are not primarily interested in election outcomes, though they did try to prevent Iraqis from voting (mostly unsucessfully).
It is interesting to watch who is so immediately proclaiming "Civil War" and "US Failure" after a relatively minor 4 day uproar... and gosh, there are Sistani and the rest on TV having meetings and denouncing murder... after 3 very successful elections bringing out all of the usually silent majority, the ones who have to barricade their windows while the Thugs roam the streets.
Yes, Iraq is largely tribal in organization. Yes, it is in a very dangerous neighbourhood. Yes, it ain't Kansas. But, neither is anywhere else in the world (except Kansas, that is.)
This is a truly noble undertaking, this Western venture into the Middle East. AND I AM BETTING ON THE ORDINARY IRAQIS. They have a splendid leader in Sistani, and one in Talibani. And behind all of them is the amazing Mr. George W Bush. The USA will, in future, be very proud of all of this, and so will the Iraqis.
Heather, I hope you're right. All: apologies for the double post up there. Browser-vs-ISP fun (...not).
Civil War? Tribal war? Hmmmmm.
Iraq has the advantage (and this is one of the reasons why it was invaded) that some Shia, the Kurds and some Sunnies in Baghdad can give the country a structure on which found institutions. A National government can always exist. This government should be based in the Rule of Law and equal treatment of all Iraqis. As long as this happens, there in no Civil War or Tribal War, but an insurrection of groups not willing to accept equality.
Then we would have the lines of Civilization and Savagery well drawn in the conflict... in those cases Civilization has usually prevailed due to its capacity of giving a better standard of living.
#5 from Andrew J. Lazarus, re: "But, under conditions of tribalist anarchy, it is impossible for any outsider to try to take sides in the feud"
This would be a tremendous surprise to the residents of Southern Lebanon. How, exactly, does one get away with writing such ahistorical rubbish, or more to the point, with having anyone link to it?
My opinion is similar. I've noticed before that Lee Harris is shockingly ignorant of military history, yet he pronounces on it as if he was a big expert.
Armed Liberal noticed the same thing, when Lee Harris made all sorts of dogmatic statements about how all wars have always been till now, statements that were too wrong even to be funny to someone with even a passing knowledge, of, say, the history of the Peloponnesian War.
If respected milbloggers who are actually there tell us "this will now be a full civil war and this is how I see it playing out," that will be news.
Till then I agree with Victor Davis Hansen in his Standoff in Iraq post: (link): our effort is already what it should be, and there's nothing to do now but wait and see what comes of it.
Can you point to anything else Lee Harris has written that supports your claim?
I was mainly pointing out my own potential bias to qualify my cool response to his article. I don't agree with Harris that "[a] far more appropriate label was the one that was once given to this bloody conflict by those who had fought on the Southern side." By taking the Southern side on "framing" the war, I think I'm justified in describing his "leanings" as "pro-confederacy." I don't think he wants slavery to exist. I didn't actually go so far as to say he wishes the Confederacy to win.
Does Harris appear to have romantic views of the Confederacy? Probably. Does he have romantic views of the American War? Definitely. The Civil War wasn't tribal? I submit that it wouldn't have been a "bloody conflict" if both sides hadn't been able to draw on tribalism.
"Yes, it ain't Kansas."
Well, as long as we are examining the analogy, it might be something like Kansas-Missouri during the 1850's and 1860's.
But we don't mark 1854 as the beginning of the American civil war. Likely, what is going on now will be remembered as an Iraqi civil war, but only if a real civil war doesn't actually break out.
As one of you noted, my controversial comment about "impossible to take sides" was not very clear.
What I meant was this: "It is impossible for any neutral outsider, such as the USA, to try to take sides in a condition of tribal anarchy without thereby forfeiting their status as a neutral outsider." I can hardly imagine a less controversial proposition, and I regret that I did not make this clearer at the time.
I thoroughly agree with David Blue's claim that I am shocking ignorant of military history, but then I am continually being shocked by my profound ignorance about everything under the sun. If I have made any remarks that inadvertently suggested I am a big expert on anything whatsoever, I can only respond that such remarks were certainly not my intention.
No Think Tank supports me. No University pays my electric bills. I have absolutely no credentials that would seduce any rational person to paying attention to what I say because of my high status and privileged position. I am just an ordinary American who is using his very limited fund of knowledge and even more limited fund of common sense to try to comprehend the nature of the difficult times in which we are all living. Everything I have written has been written to suggest ideas for debate and discussion, and certainly not to impose dogmas.
I would be delighted to try to persuade TCS into publishing any critique of my essays that David Blue might wish to write, or even any exposure of my historical ignorance. I have often regretted that none of our establishment elite has ever bothered to criticize my ideas: I can only assume that they think my opinions are unworthy of their attention.
Which is why I would like to thank you all, including my critics among you, for taking the time to comment on my piece.
P.S.
I used the analogy of the American Civil War rather than, say, The Spanish Civil War or Russian Civil War because I thought it would make my point clearer to an American readership. Though I live in Georgia, not far from Stone Mountain, I have no romantic attachment to the Confederacy.
P.S.S.
I am also opposed to slavery, just in case there was any lingering questions on that issue.