What Threshold Civil War?
One of the arguments that I've heard on the web for getting out of Iraq is that what we are dealing with over there is a civil war. That's an argument that resonates with me. For the most part, I'm a big believer in letting countries settle their own differences when at all possible. As much as I love our country, I'd be the first to admit that our record on foriegn involvement is mixed at best. So, is the war in Iraq a "civil war?"
My knowledge on what makes a civil war is limited. The best background I have is from what I've learned of America's war over a hundred years ago. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much in common. A defined area of the country(the South) stated their intention to withdraw from the Union. (They even sealed the deal by firing on a Union fort.) I have heard of no sizable group making that claim. The South also withdrew from the Union government. Again, the last time that I checked, all constituent groups were present and accounted for in the Iraqi government. Established borders were in place, a nominal government was set up the in succeeding zone, and the causes of the conflict were known. I know of no established borders for hostility in Iraq, there is no identifiable opposition government, and the disputes are somewhat fluid to say the least.
About the only thing that those who claim that a civil war is in progress can point to is that there is ongoing violence against the government and the Americans, and that the violence is being conducted by Iraqi's. Part of that could be disputed, as it appears that at least a part of the violence is foriegn sponsored. If we are using domestic violence as the sole criteria for declaring a civil war, then I have to ask just how much violence does it take to call it a war?
Does it need to be roughly 50-50? 60-40? How about 90-10? If 10% of the Iraqi's wanted to settle this conflict violently, can there be any realy doubt that things would be much worse? How about 1%? That would be roughly 150,000 Iraqis. They know the territory. Could we maintain a semblance of order with 150,000 Iraqis dedicated to war?
When is it a war, and when is it just a bunch of thugs with guns and explosives? It's an important question to ask. A relatively small band of well-armed thugs can create the appearance of a war, and enslave a poorly armed nation. Our own forefathers recognized this fact when they crafted the 2nd ammendment to our Constitution.
For myself, I believe they're thugs. I can't honestly say that I know what the outcome will be long term if we stay, but if we go then we abandon a nation to tyranny. For those who claim that our actions so far have created more terrorists, think of how many will rise against us as they live each day under a dictatorship and know that it was our lack of will that put the monsters in charge. In time, I believe that Iraq will develop the tools it needs to set its own course. It may not be one that sees the US as a friend, but at least then they will see us as a nation that gave them a chance.
So: Is it a war?
My knowledge on what makes a civil war is limited. The best background I have is from what I've learned of America's war over a hundred years ago. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much in common. A defined area of the country(the South) stated their intention to withdraw from the Union. (They even sealed the deal by firing on a Union fort.) I have heard of no sizable group making that claim. The South also withdrew from the Union government. Again, the last time that I checked, all constituent groups were present and accounted for in the Iraqi government. Established borders were in place, a nominal government was set up the in succeeding zone, and the causes of the conflict were known. I know of no established borders for hostility in Iraq, there is no identifiable opposition government, and the disputes are somewhat fluid to say the least.
About the only thing that those who claim that a civil war is in progress can point to is that there is ongoing violence against the government and the Americans, and that the violence is being conducted by Iraqi's. Part of that could be disputed, as it appears that at least a part of the violence is foriegn sponsored. If we are using domestic violence as the sole criteria for declaring a civil war, then I have to ask just how much violence does it take to call it a war?
Does it need to be roughly 50-50? 60-40? How about 90-10? If 10% of the Iraqi's wanted to settle this conflict violently, can there be any realy doubt that things would be much worse? How about 1%? That would be roughly 150,000 Iraqis. They know the territory. Could we maintain a semblance of order with 150,000 Iraqis dedicated to war?
When is it a war, and when is it just a bunch of thugs with guns and explosives? It's an important question to ask. A relatively small band of well-armed thugs can create the appearance of a war, and enslave a poorly armed nation. Our own forefathers recognized this fact when they crafted the 2nd ammendment to our Constitution.
For myself, I believe they're thugs. I can't honestly say that I know what the outcome will be long term if we stay, but if we go then we abandon a nation to tyranny. For those who claim that our actions so far have created more terrorists, think of how many will rise against us as they live each day under a dictatorship and know that it was our lack of will that put the monsters in charge. In time, I believe that Iraq will develop the tools it needs to set its own course. It may not be one that sees the US as a friend, but at least then they will see us as a nation that gave them a chance.
So: Is it a war?
7 Comments:
At 10:52 AM, iamnasra said…
www.livinginpoetry.blogspot.com has a tribute for Paul of spiritualdiablog and now in his new website www.originalfaith.com. Hope u can join us in this tribute and if you can helps us spread the word among his blog friends
Thanks, see u there
At 6:22 PM, C-dell said…
It think it is a civil war. Two sides fighting for a country, and ithey both claim to be the right choose for the country. Thanks for the comment.
At 7:07 PM, Unknown said…
Except of course, we really don't know how many people are involved in "the other side". If it were one million against the other twenty-four, okay. But what if there were 100,000? What if there were only 10,000? If a large gang decides to control an area of territory based on fear and weapons in the US, would that make it a "civil war" or just a large group of criminals that needed to be stopped?
BTW - I like your "Gambit" icon.
At 6:27 AM, Anonymous said…
I don't see it so much as a civil war but as a holy war, that has been ongoing for centuries.
I want the troops to come home, but if we pull out immediately, we must be prepared to watch another fiasco similar to the withdrawal from Viet Nam, and the death and destruction that followed.
I agree we have to way to guage the numbers on either side, and it seems there are a few who conduct terror operations, and a few who wring their hands, and bury their dead.
Should America have intervened? Not without seeking some sort of diplomatic dialogue first.
At 9:47 AM, Unknown said…
Hey Me,
Thanks for the comment.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "Not without some sort of diplomatic dialogue first." Before we went in, the country was under Saddam, which was pretty much secular control. It was reasonably peaceful at the time, albeit under a very strict dictatorship. There were many attempts at diplomacy then, and each one was thwarted by Saddam's refusal to abide by agreements.
What is going on over there now (which is alternately referred to as the war on terror, civil war, holy war, etc.) began in Iraq after Saddam was deposed and interim governments were set up. We were in constant touch with the interim government, and now the elected government. So here is my confusion: When are you saying we should have tried diplomacy, and with whom? I just want to understand where you are coming from.
At 8:14 AM, `NEFTY said…
Ugh, I hate how the U.S put it's buisness in a foreign country's affair=(
At 4:45 PM, Christinewjc said…
Hi Gary,
I just wanted to drop by and say that I applaud you in your efforts to reach Deb at her blog. You have made many important points to show Deb where she is in error.
I have found that someone like Deb who has been given all the evidence which contradicts her opinion on this topic will just continue to refuse to see the truth. People like that will not come around until they drop their pride and self-knowledge, in order to let Jesus Christ, and His Word, the Bible reign over self-wisdom.
Evidence of the Lord being first in one's life is when we give our lives totally over to Him, thus allowing Him to be Lord over all.
I pray that one day Deb will do just that.
Good work over there. We never know what positive effect your sharing might have on the lurkers who read that blog.
In Christ,
Christine
Post a Comment
<< Home