tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
I just happen to agree with the writer, Mr. Sambanis.

Op-Ed Contributor
It?s Official: There Is Now a Civil War in Iraq

By NICHOLAS SAMBANIS
Published: July 23, 2006

HAS the conflict in Iraq turned into a civil war?

Civil wars are defined as armed conflicts between the government of a sovereign state and domestic political groups mounting effective resistance in relatively continuous fighting that causes high numbers of deaths. This broad definition does not always distinguish civil wars from other forms of political violence, so we often use somewhat arbitrary criteria, like different thresholds of annual deaths, to sort out cases. Depending on the criteria used, there have been about 100 to 150 civil wars since 1945. Iraq is clearly one of them.

Many people might have a narrowly construed idea of what constitutes a civil war based on familiar examples, like the American Civil War. Civil wars, however, actually vary widely. They include bloody yet short-lived coups (Argentina in 1955); organized civilian massacres by the warring parties (Burundi in 1972 and in 1988); guerrilla warfare combined with genocide (as in Cambodia and Guatemala); recurrent bouts of factional conflict in the military (Central African Republic from 1996 to 1997); combinations of criminal and political violence (Chechnya and Algeria in the late 1990?s); self-determination struggles (Sri Lanka since 1983, Bangladesh in 1971 and Sudan from 1983 to 2005, when Khartoum and southern rebels signed an accord); or warfare between large, well-organized armies (China from 1927 to 1949, El Salvador from 1979 to 1992, Mozambique from 1976 to 1992, Croatia in 1991, and Angola from 1975 to 2002). Some unlucky countries have had combinations of all the above ? the Congo is the best example.

Sometimes we cannot tell if a civil war has started until long after the fact, when a minor conflict that has gone on for years suddenly spikes into large-scale violence.

Conversely, it is sometimes hard to know when a civil war ends, as wars can turn into long-lasting minor insurgencies, like the conflict between Indonesian security forces and the Free Papua Movement.

What?s more, civil wars are sometimes limited to peripheral areas (as in Uganda?s war against the Lord?s Resistance Army) or they can engulf the whole country, as in Greece (1944 to 1949) or Bosnia (1992 to 1995). In some countries ? like Chad, Colombia and Myanmar, which have been in and out of civil war for more than 40 years ? civil war becomes a fact of life rather than an anomaly.

The question of whether a country has fallen into civil war is often deliberately muddied for political reasons. States avoid using the term to play down the level of opposition to them. Thus, for example, the Kenyan ?shifta? war of the 1960?s against secessionist Somalis in the Northern Frontier District may have technically been a small civil war, but in the historiography of the country and in the minds of many Kenyans, it was just banditry (?shifta? means bandit) or a border conflict with Somalia.

But if the term ?civil war? seeks to convey the condition of a divided society engaged in destructive armed conflict, then Iraq sadly fits the bill. Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together have managed to create 40 or so political parties and dozens of militias in two years of sovereign rule.

The insurgency started while Iraq was under foreign occupation, but it intensified since the handoff of sovereignty. The insurgents have been fighting continuously, violence affects all sides and there have been more than 30,000 civilian and military deaths, dwarfing the median number of 18,000 deaths for all civil wars since 1945.

In addition, sectarian violence is uprooting ever larger numbers of Iraqis. On Thursday, the Iraqi government reported that in the previous week alone, more than 1,000 families had left integrated areas for Shiite or Sunni strongholds.

Fighting a civil war is the way that some societies build a state, and it is hard to imagine how there could have been a smooth transition from Saddam Hussein?s dictatorship. Still, the United States has clearly helped to create the conditions for Iraq?s descent into civil war.

Two failures are worth noting. First, a large literature on contentious politics has shown that violent opposition groups gain legitimacy and public support when the state uses indiscriminate violence or abuses civilians. This is precisely what has happened in Iraq, with recent reports of civilian abuses by the coalition.

Second, civil war studies have shown that insurgencies grow into large wars when insurgents receive external assistance. The American-led coalition simply has not had the manpower to quarantine those Iraqis who have reportedly received assistance from neighboring countries and international terrorist entities.

What can be done? History shows that the one way to build peace after a civil war is through a decisive victory ? something that?s easier said than done. Negotiated settlements can also produce a lasting peace, but durable settlements like those in Cambodia, Mozambique and El Salvador usually come after long wars (10 years on average). And the United Nations can help, but only after an agreement has been reached. The United Nations cannot win wars, but it can shore up the foundation for a peace.

More than a third of civil wars restart within five years and Iraq has many risk factors: a dependence on oil, a population polarized along religious lines, meddlesome neighbors, no democratic traditions and a long history of violent conflict.

But there is also good news. Iraq is better off than many countries in the midst of a civil war: its income is relatively high, it has an educated populace and it can count on abundant foreign assistance if fighting ends.

Whether these factors will help to bring an end to the conflict in Iraq is an open question. What is no longer an open question, however, is the nature of the conflict. It is a civil war, not an insurgency.

Nicholas Sambanis, an associate professor of political science at Yale, is the co-author of ?Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations.?

End Article in Opinion -------------------------
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
As I noted on another thread--I still believe Iraq is in a pre-civil war stage---and the situation for the average Iraqi stinks--with the quality of life is infinately worse
due to the US occupation. But its somewhat sematics and definitions---but I still say when and if civil war occurs---there will be zero doubt in anyones mind. As the war spills out past
all Iraqi borders.

What time interval would it take to go from what I advocate is still a pre-civil war stage to a full blown civil war?------that is the question we need to ask.

Given that the US strategy is to hang on and hope for the best----and we may suddenly find---basically overnight---that our continued presence in Iraq is totally untenable.
With the new panic question being can we get our troops out alive?
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optimistic.
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optomistic.


Plenty of Confederate-flag waving lunatics would disagree with you there.

Many consider Lincoln to be one of the worst presidents in history.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optomistic [sic].
And how many were killed in the process? And how long did it take until the slaves (blacks/African-Americans/negroes/colored/whatever) achieved full equality with their white oppressors?
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optomistic [sic].
And how many were killed in the process? And how long did it take until the slaves (blacks/African-Americans/negroes/colored/whatever) achieved full equality with their white oppressors?

Many were killed in the process. The slaves were eventually granted freedom from slavery, but without the same legal rights as white men. The civil rights movement of the 60's made all colored people have the same rights. Now we have politicians making laws that take away from other people's rights to cater to minorities.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
From a strategic standpoint I see no problem here. Keeps them and terrorist immigrants killing each other instead of killing in western neighborhoods. Drains men materials and weaponry than could be used on the USA, israel, west. Once they relise how wacked out they are following a 1400 year old text to the letter and grow tired of fighting you will get your secular democracy.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optomistic [sic].
And how many were killed in the process? And how long did it take until the slaves (blacks/African-Americans/negroes/colored/whatever) achieved full equality with their white oppressors?
Many were killed in the process. The slaves were eventually granted freedom from slavery, but without the same legal rights as white men. The civil rights movement of the 60's made all colored people have the same rights. <BS snipped>
So, it only took 100 years?
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optomistic [sic].
And how many were killed in the process? And how long did it take until the slaves (blacks/African-Americans/negroes/colored/whatever) achieved full equality with their white oppressors?
Many were killed in the process. The slaves were eventually granted freedom from slavery, but without the same legal rights as white men. The civil rights movement of the 60's made all colored people have the same rights. <BS snipped because I know you're right and don't want to be pwnd>
So, it only took 100 years?

Yes. Compare how successful a black man can be today vs 150+ years ago. There is a world of difference.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
ok, well, go rush over to Iraq and tell them they can rest assured that in 150 years all will be well.

:roll:
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
ok, well, go rush over to Iraq and tell them they can rest assured that in 150 years all will be well.

:roll:

If Iraq becomes the equivilent of our country in 150 years, I'd be surprised it came so soon.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optomistic [sic].
And how many were killed in the process? And how long did it take until the slaves (blacks/African-Americans/negroes/colored/whatever) achieved full equality with their white oppressors?

Many were killed in the process. The slaves were eventually granted freedom from slavery, but without the same legal rights as white men. The civil rights movement of the 60's made all colored people have the same rights. Now we have politicians making laws that take away from other people's rights to cater to minorities.

Actually much of the civil rights movement took place in the 50s but many milestones (aside from Brown v Board) occurred in the 60s. It's my impression that the typical politician that makes laws catering to a minority ain't worried about black, brown, red, or yellow. The minority is usually a high 6- (or 7-) figure household.

As for the OP, civil war is often a rite of passage for countries attempting to transition from autocracy to democracy. But it doesn't always have a good outcome. It's abundantly clear that people that compare Iraq to the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII, or even Vietnam . . . are pretty ignorant, delusional, or just plain stupid.

The conflict in Iraq does share a few characteristics with those others:
1) most of the people dying did nothing wrong
2) most of the people killing have done almost nothing but wrong
3) conflict won't end until the killers lose interest or the killed fight back (political)
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Actually much of the civil rights movement took place in the 50s but many milestones (aside from Brown v Board) occurred in the 60s. It's my impression that the typical politician that makes laws catering to a minority ain't worried about black, brown, red, or yellow. The minority is usually a high 6- (or 7-) figure household.

Not true. Look at how many laws there are out there. Not being able to send your child to a better school. Not being able to rent your house to whomever you wish (whatever happened to the right to refuse service?). Hate crimes (a savage hypocrisy :), entitlements to illegal immigrants. I could probably think of some more, but I think that will be sufficient.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: conjur
ok, well, go rush over to Iraq and tell them they can rest assured that in 150 years all will be well.

:roll:

If Iraq becomes the equivilent of our country in 150 years, I'd be surprised it came so soon.

If Iraq becomes equivalent of our country in 150 years . . . anybody with two neurons would be surprised it came at all. There's very little that's comparable about Iraq to any stage of America's history.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: conjur
ok, well, go rush over to Iraq and tell them they can rest assured that in 150 years all will be well.

:roll:

If Iraq becomes the equivilent of our country in 150 years, I'd be surprised it came so soon.

If Iraq becomes equivalent of our country in 150 years . . . anybody with two neurons would be surprised it came at all. There's very little that's comparable about Iraq to any stage of America's history.

I know. I was just being optimistic.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Actually much of the civil rights movement took place in the 50s but many milestones (aside from Brown v Board) occurred in the 60s. It's my impression that the typical politician that makes laws catering to a minority ain't worried about black, brown, red, or yellow. The minority is usually a high 6- (or 7-) figure household.

Not true. Look at how many laws there are out there. Not being able to send your child to a better school. Not being able to rent your house to whomever you wish (whatever happened to the right to refuse service?). Hate crimes (a savage hypocrisy :), entitlements to illegal immigrants. I could probably think of some more, but I think that will be sufficient.

If you want to send your kid to a better school you have plenty of options: 1) most districts allow transfers within (balanced against other concerns), 2) send them to a private school . . . granted best evidence is that the 'average' child won't do any better, 3) teach your little turd at home.

The law of our land is that nondiscrimination is a fundamental tenet of our society. You are free to discriminate to the extent you extract absolutely NO benefits from the broader society. So feel free to restrict tenants to retarded, Republicans but don't expect equal access to public services.

So hate crime laws impose upon your right to violate other peoples' rights?:confused: Dude, you need to seek some help.

When it comes to illegal immigrants, there's certainly a diversity of opinion as to what should be provided. IMHO, only lowlifes advocate the curtailment of basic education, emergency healthcare, or general protective services (police, fire). Technically, none of those are entitlements in the statutory sense but they are in a basic moral sense. I would certainly be interested in any evidence you have that illegal immigrants are collecting SS, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits as a function of legal authorization.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Actually much of the civil rights movement took place in the 50s but many milestones (aside from Brown v Board) occurred in the 60s. It's my impression that the typical politician that makes laws catering to a minority ain't worried about black, brown, red, or yellow. The minority is usually a high 6- (or 7-) figure household.

Not true. Look at how many laws there are out there. Not being able to send your child to a better school. Not being able to rent your house to whomever you wish (whatever happened to the right to refuse service?). Hate crimes (a savage hypocrisy :), entitlements to illegal immigrants. I could probably think of some more, but I think that will be sufficient.

If you want to send your kid to a better school you have plenty of options: 1) most districts allow transfers within (balanced against other concerns), 2) send them to a private school . . . granted best evidence is that the 'average' child won't do any better, 3) teach your little turd at home.

The law of our land is that nondiscrimination is a fundamental tenet of our society. You are free to discriminate to the extent you extract absolutely NO benefits from the broader society. So feel free to restrict tenants to retarded, Republicans but don't expect equal access to public services.

So hate crime laws impose upon your right to violate other peoples' rights?:confused: Dude, you need to seek some help.

When it comes to illegal immigrants, there's certainly a diversity of opinion as to what should be provided. IMHO, only lowlifes advocate the curtailment of basic education, emergency healthcare, or general protective services (police, fire). Technically, none of those are entitlements in the statutory sense but they are in a basic moral sense. I would certainly be interested in any evidence you have that illegal immigrants are collecting SS, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits as a function of legal authorization.

The fact is that there are laws trying to balance out the distribution of minorities do all of the schools. This weighs in if you want to transfer your student to another school (they won't always let you). True you can send your student to a private school or move (if there is housing available near the school you wish your child to go to), but the government monopoly of public schools is still taking your money and not completely offering you certain freedoms of public schools.

Housing discrimination is still illegal. If you decide you don't want to rent your house out because of somebody's race, you are breaking the law. That is an infringement of property rights.

Hate crimes are terrible. The punishment is WORSE if you decide to assault somebody because of their race (or other factors). The crime is the same.

I recently visited a governmend-funded clinic where the nurse giving the tour stated that it was "really necessary to help out the latino-community, many of which weren't born here."

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: conjur
ok, well, go rush over to Iraq and tell them they can rest assured that in 150 years all will be well.

:roll:
If Iraq becomes the equivilent of our country in 150 years, I'd be surprised it came so soon.
Ok, so you don't think that will happen even in the next 150 years. How, then, can you claim to be optimistic about civil war in Iraq?

The two don't jive.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: conjur
ok, well, go rush over to Iraq and tell them they can rest assured that in 150 years all will be well.

:roll:
If Iraq becomes the equivilent of our country in 150 years, I'd be surprised it came so soon.
Ok, so you don't think that will happen even in the next 150 years. How, then, can you claim to be optimistic about civil war in Iraq?

The two don't jive.


Well lets say it took over 100 years for blacks to finally have equal rights. It all began with slavery. The U.S. had a civil war and slavery was abolished. Are you saying that the civil war didn't have certain positive outcomes?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
No, but you're saying a civil war in Iraq would be a good thing. More of the "ends justify the means".

Don't suppose diplomacy or something as radical as a political/geographical splitting of Iraq to avoid bloodshed would be an option in your world?
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
No, but you're saying a civil war in Iraq would be a good thing. More of the "ends justify the means".

Don't suppose diplomacy or something as radical as a political/geographical splitting of Iraq to avoid bloodshed would be an option in your world?

I didn't say civil war in Iraq would be a good thing. I'm just saying that it won't ruin the country.

That would be a great option.
 

LLCOOLJ

Senior member
Oct 26, 2004
346
0
0
Let's just hope when it's all said and done we don't end up with a bunch of Iraqi refugee boat people in the US.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,200
4,871
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Our country fought a civil war and became a better place after it was over. Just trying to be optimistic...
I didn't say civil war in Iraq would be a good thing. I'm just saying that it won't ruin the country.
Optimism has its place in the world. But, unadulterated optimism without considering realism is a recipe for disaster (people aren't then prepared for what will really happen). So here is a touch of realism. History gave us a very recent example of what might happen in Iraq: Afghanistan. The two stories aren't 100% identical, but they are so close that they are worth comparing.

[*]Mid 1970s, Afghanistan had an unstable government from a military coup a few years earlier, Early 2000s Iraq had a stable government after a war a few years earlier (if you call Saddam stable). This is where the two stories differ, but the rest is similar.
[*]1978, battles broke out in a short war and shortly thereafter the USSR decided it wanted to force their form of goverment on Afghanistan. Afghan "holy warriors" were arrested and exiled. 2003, a short war started and shortly thereafter the USA decided it wanted to force their form of government on Iraq. Iraq "jihadists" were arrested and shipped to Guantanamo.
[*]1978+ USSR poored vast quantities of money into Afghanistan to build infrastructure and to train the Afghan army. 2003+ the US poored vast quantities of money into Iraq to build infrastucture and to train the Iraq army.
[*]1979-1988, after a short war period the instability just kept going, USSR was forced to have a prolonged and costly stabilization campaign. 1000 Soviet soldiers died a year. 2004-?, after a short war period the instability just kept going, USA was forced to have a prolonged and costly stabilization campaign. 1000 American soldiers died a year.
[*]1989-1998, civil war happened in Afghanistan, the Taliban eventually gained control, Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden are the results of all of this. 200?, civil war starts in Iraq. Who knows what horrible government and terrorists will be the result.

Maybe Iraq's conclusion will be different than Afghanistan's conclusion. But so far, history seems to be repeating itself.