The Coffeespy

A Harris Poll published through the Wall Street Journal has 68% of Americans saying Iraq is in the midst of a civil war.  For those who appreciate knowing what they’re talking about, here is a sampling of what various sources say about “civil war” and the criteria by which they’re judged:

Wikipedia

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criterion for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

Merriam-Webster:

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

That’s all fine and dandy.  According to Wikipedia, Iraq may be in a civil war while Merriam-Webster would have you believe any insurgency deserves civil war status (no slight on Merriam-Webster, I doubt they knew how their meaning would be twisted to suit certain ends).  Some really good analysis came out of Stanford University’s Dr. James Fearon:

Politics aside, however, the definition of civil war is not arbitrary. For some — and perhaps especially Americans — the term brings to mind all-out historical conflicts along the lines of the U.S. or Spanish civil wars. According to this notion, there will not be civil war in Iraq until we see mass mobilization of sectarian communities behind more or less conventional armies.

This is the basis for a catch-22 scenario.  Hold on, more from the good doctor:

But a more standard definition is common today:

1) Civil war refers to a violent conflict between organized groups within a country that are fighting over control of the government, one side’s separatist goals, or some divisive government policy.

Ok, well Iraq definitely meets that criteria.  But as Dr. Fearon points out:

By this measure, the war in Iraq has been a civil war not simply since the escalation of internecine killings following the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, but at least since the United States handed over formal control to an interim Iraqi government in June 2004.

So there are additional requirements:

2) For a conflict to qualify as a civil war, most academics use the threshold of 1,000 dead, which leads to the inclusion of a good number of low-intensity rural insurgencies.

… 

3) If the conflict in Iraq becomes purely a matter of violence between Sunni and Shiite communities driven by revenge and hatred rather than by political goals, many political scientists would say that it is something other than civil war.

Again, check and check.  Looks like Iraq is definitely in a civil war.  Even though the sides are divided down religious lines, each religious division wants control of the government.  So… civil war.  Finally, a good analysis on what civil war actually is.  Unfortunately, this brings me back to the catch-22.

Remember that annoying little part in the beginning about what Americans expect a civil war to look like?  Massive armies mobilized in conventional battles to annihilate each other in a struggly to the death for control of the government?  That one?  That’s the catch-22.  We use a very academic approach to identify what makes a conflict a civil war, but then dress it up in glorified war imagery.  Some will use the technical definition in order to declare the conflict a civil war knowing full well that most Americans will have that picture stuck in their heads.

So what can we do?  Deny it’s a civil war?

This brings me back to the common man’s perspective.  The Harris Poll says 68% of Americans believe it’s a civil war.  I ask why?  I don’t believe it’s because they subscribe to the picture the doctor paints of how civil wars are perceived.  If you check the date, he wrote that bit of analysis in April.  It was printed in the Washington Post.  Then for several months the point is debated.  Few people decide to get smart on it and simply rely on skimming headlines or hitting the blogs.  Abracadabra, you have yourself a civil war that may cause public support for the effort to erode even more.

I’ll leave you with a little something to nag at your brain.  A tomato is a fruit.  But we cook it like a vegetable.  We cook it like a vegetable because that’s the way it works.  Using it as an ice cream topping would be fairly disgusting.

The situation in Iraq is a civil war.  But we treat it like an insurgency.  We treat it like an insurgency because that’s the way you treat an insurgent faction propped up by terrorist enablers.  Giving it credibility as a legitimate side in a civil war is fairly disgusting.

All this talk of civil war is becoming a little un-civil.  A careless reader could see the Boston Globe (via AP) story and think Colin Powell is calling the situation in Iraq a civil war.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Former secretary of state Colin Powell said yesterday at a business conference here that the war in Iraq “could be considered a civil war,” the conference organizer said.

The retired general’s comments come in sharp contrast to those of President Bush, who said Tuesday that Iraq is not in a civil war.

“Sharp contrast?”  Nope, this is just someone with an agenda playing with language.  Unfortunately, they’re trying to pass it off as journalism.  Colin Powell said it “could” be called a civil war.  Depends on the standard you use.

There are various agendas at work here.  There’s the administration’s stance that if we call it a civil war, Americans will stop supporting it.  After all, who wants Americans to die for problems between the Sunnis and Shiites?  Then there’s an honest look at what a civil war is, unfortunately I don’t have any examples of that in print.  Maybe this will turn out to be one.  Then there’s the people who actually want the effort to fail because they’re addicted to Schadenfreude.

Here are some exerpts from a Miami Herald editorial (I think, it’s written in editorial style but shows up on the national news page) by Carol Rosenberg that plays at being impartial:

NBC has done it. The New York Times says it is doing it, sparingly. Even The Miami Herald’s parent company, McClatchy, joined the fray:

U.S. news outlets are upsetting a Bush administration taboo and using the term ”civil war” for the bloodshed in Iraq — a development, analysts say, which could change the way Americans both think about and conduct the war.

I was unaware of a presidential taboo being issued, but ok.  This is followed later in the article by the academic sounding quote from Stephen Biddle, senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations:

A classic civil war requires three elements, he said: Warfare between contestants internal to a state; a conflict that has killed more than 1,000 people; at least 100 dead on each side among those 1,000 dead.

Interesting, considering that between 1979 and 1998 Los Angeles county reported between 205 and 807 gang-related homicides.  The Bloods and the Crips are territorial and have actually divided up neighborhoods enough that battlelines can be drawn.  So, you’ve got two armed forces based in the same geographical area fighting it out… and they definitely meet the casualty standards.  Looks like L.A. has its own civil war going on!  Call out the National Guard!  Right?  Or does that not count because gang members are “just criminals?”

The fact of the matter is that Iraq does appear to be on the verge of a civil war.  Using the immense powers of common sense, it is possible to determine that if the Suunis could field a militia to match Sadr’s there would be a full blown conflict.  Right now, it’s high-intensity terrorism.  You have Sunnis who feel defeated and marginalized.  Shiites who are either Iranian puppets, attempting to grab power, or in it for revenge.  And then you have external influences like Al Qaeda, Syria, and Iran.  That’s turmoil, not actually a civil war.  It would take a unifying force on the Sunni side to make it into what the common person would describe as a civil war.

I mentioned the common man perspective.  Well, the stories like those above are trying to mold that perspective without doing the intellectual work to support it.  They pick a few choice quotes, they hold a few hand-picked interviews, and then they haul out whatever academian agrees with their views.  That’s not what freedom of the press is about.  It is, however, what political campaigning is all about.

Another unpopular fact is that if Americans weren’t so preoccupied with the perception of a thing and actually took the time to learn about a thing, we wouldn’t be bickering over whether there’s a civil war going on and we could bicker about more important things, like what to do about it.  While some may claim it’s not our responsibility since civil wars are internal problems, we created the situation that allowed it to happen.  So even if you saddle the situation with “civil war,” that does not alleviate our obligation to the people of Iraq.

However, in true American intelligentsia fashion, we’ll debate labels and semantics instead of the meat of the issue.  Why?  Because learning is just too hard for some people.