Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Dr. Luttwak, and how he learned to love civil war
I'm in Toronto today and pretty jammed, but I did want to mention an essay by Edward Luttwak on the possible salutory benefits of a civil war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is behind the Toronto Globe and Mail's subscription wall, but the pertinent paragraphs are below:
Civil wars can be especially atrocious as neighbours kill each other at close range, but these wars, too, have a purpose in this world -- they can bring lasting peace by destroying the will to fight, and by removing the motives and opportunities for further violence.
England's civil war in the mid-17th century assured the subsequent centuries of political stability under Parliament and a limited monarchy. But first there had to be a war with several pitched battles and some killings on the side, including the decapitation of King Charles I, who had claimed absolute power by divine right.
The United States had its own civil war two centuries later, which established the rule that states cannot leave the union alone or in company, abolishing slavery in the process. Destruction was vast, and the casualties immense as compared to all subsequent American wars, given the size of the population. But without the decisive victory of the Union, two separate and quarrelsome republics might still endure between Canada and Mexico, periodically at war with each other -- except that secession is contagious so that the separation of more states from each side would have ensued, with more wars.
Latin American disunity and warfare are not really comparable because religious unity under Catholicism has limited the damage, with a few bloody exceptions such as the Chaco War (1932-35).
Even Switzerland had its civil war in 1847, out of which came the limited but sturdy unity of its federation. Close proximity, overlapping languages and centuries of common history were not enough to resolve differences between the cantons. They had to fight briefly, with 86 killed in all, to strike a balance of strength between them. Only then could the Swiss settle down in lasting peace.
Now it is Iraq's turn.
Luttwak then described the history of the triangular conflict between the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds, the effects of Saddam's regime and the spread of Salafist fundamentalism among the Sunnis, and so forth. He concludes:
The fundamental factors causing the violence are now impossible to reverse. Physical separation is therefore the remaining means of limiting the killings. That is under way, thanks to the very violence that is driving out one sect or the other from mixed villages, towns and city districts. The process is especially cruel for those who still feel no sectarian hostility -- including the offspring of mixed marriages -- but that is one way in which civil war achieves its purpose of bringing peace.
If the king of continental Europe, royal cousins to Charles I, had combined forces to save his life, the principle of absolute monarchy, and Britain's peace, they could perhaps have prevented the casualties of the civil war, but only at the price of perpetuating strife by blocking progress toward a stable political system. Likewise, the British and other European great powers could have sent extraditionary armies to stop the carnage of the American Civil War, but in so doing, they would have prevented the eventual emergence of a peacefully united republic.
Iraq's civil war is no different. It, too, should be allowed to bring peace.
Edward Luttwak is correct in his reading of history. It may well be that Iraq is going to struggle with sectarian violence -- never mind the now politically charged question of whether it constitutes a "civil war" -- until that phenomenon burns itself out. Unfortunately, even if one were to accept Luttwak's argument that civil war might be Iraq's best path to a durable and lasting political and civil society, it is hardly in the interests of either the United States or its neighbors. If the lid entirely comes off as it did in the American and English civil wars, there will be no end of foreign intervention, whether from Iran, stateless jihadis, Sunnis co-religionists from Arab countries, or the United States seeking to prevent all of the above. So unmediated struggle may in fact be the prerequisite for true peace in Iraq, but the world will not let that happen without a lot of collateral damage.
18 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed May 10, 08:58:00 AM:
In this sense, Saddam's trial and likely eventual guilt and execution may serve as a bookend to thie violence...
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed May 10, 09:05:00 AM:
It's interesting to hear the pro-war crowd now openly discuss the meaning of a civil war in Iraq, and it's not surprising to hear a distinctly positive spin put on the suffering of war. Whether you're for pulling the troops out now, in November, or never, the fact remains that the situation on the ground is, to some degree, civil war.
When we do the final tally of those killed or profoundly wounded by the Bush administration's rush to invade a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, I wonder if the pro-war crowd will feel pride or shame. I understand that you, Hawk, strive to examine the Iraq situation in pragmatic ways without getting bogged down in morality, legality, or blame. But for those of us who opposed this war from the outset, it's maddening to see the right begin this latest of memes "Civil War is Good For You!".
Bush and his team erred in prosecuting this unnecessary war, and tens of thousands of people are dead because of it. Those in Iraq who continue to pursue violence have as much responsibility and share as much of the blame as the Bush administration for creating an unstable, warring society. Fundamentalists of any stripe are, by their nature, narrowly focused and working under ideological assumptions that the rest of us see as dangerous, arrogant, violent, and criminal.
Let's hope those whose crystal balls foresee a shiny happy secular democracy in Iraq are correct. And let's hope that those who pursue violent solutions fall out of favor.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed May 10, 11:01:00 AM:
Actually Screwy, as is clear on other messages around here, I don't think that Iraq is currently experiencing a civil war.
I would also posit that Saddam's butchery was appreciably nastier for most of the Iraqis -- the shiites and kurds -- than the war. Still, we agree, war is hell. That doesn't mean we won't keep fighting them. it seems a regular part of the human condition. Look at Darfur and the Congo. The question is what do we fight for? Do we seek to improve the way things are? Are we doing good in Iraq?
I believe the answer to that is a resounding yes. Saddam gone = GOOD. Baathism gone = GOOD. And no matter what you may say about the trials and challenges of the war, and however much myou may dislike it, I think even you must acknowledge that without the war, these goods would not have been achieved. Saddam would still be in power, ruthlessly oppressing Iraqis. His disgusting sons would be ascendant. Etc Etc.
Thankfully, the course cannot be reversed. And as Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon lurch forward on unsteady, newborn legs, let's hope we continue to demonstrate the resolve to stand by and assist their development. And continue to reshape that Middle East so that its people experience more freedom and prosperity, rather than continued oppression and poverty. Perhaps in may years, we can look back on Iraq as we do today on Korea, and marvel at the success and prosperity and freedom South Kreoans have achieved in 50 years time. And of course, there, we have the abject comparison to North Korea which makes the case so plainly.
I have every confidence that we will see that in Iraq.
By Counter Trey, at
Wed May 10, 11:37:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Counter Trey, at
Wed May 10, 11:40:00 AM:
Screwy,
I'm curious; can you name a war that you felt was justified? If so, please name it.
By Georg Felis, at
Wed May 10, 01:23:00 PM:
Hmm… Wonder if the present Quebec separatist movement in Canada could be solved by a civil war? Of course, being Canada, the war would be restricted to beer drinking duels and snowmobile jousting ;)
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed May 10, 03:59:00 PM:
Justified isn't the word I would use, trey, but a military offensive that was used to defend and protect our nation was the Afghanistan action. I've got more, too, but I'm guessing you're only asking in order to attack my position on Iraq, so we'll leave it at that.
By Counter Trey, at
Wed May 10, 04:25:00 PM:
Screwy,
No, I'm not interested in attacking just to attack. I was truly curious whether you thought that there were wars worth fighting. I'm glad to hear that you think this country is worth defending; too few on the left agree with you.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed May 10, 08:49:00 PM:
Counter,
It's a pretty common consensus in America that Afghanistan was a necessary war. In contrast, the recent CBS poll shows only 39% of Americans say Bush made the right decision in starting the Iraq war.
If you're honestly shocked that Screwy holds both majority opinions, you've read about too many concocted Demonic Strawman Liberals. Get out and meet a few of the real deal. They aren't as scary as you'd think reading the blogs.
Incidentally, support of the Afghan war and disdain for Iraqi one is prevalent throughout most of the world. It was even the stated position of the Pope for God's sake (bless his soul).
By Admin, at
Wed May 10, 09:06:00 PM:
personally, i dont see how an unnecessary, illegal war of aggression which very may cost 1 trillion dollars is an "defense" of the nation.
i supported the invasion of Afghanistan myself; however, having read most of the published writings of the Plan for the New American Century, i was aware of the neo-cons strategy of "spheres of influence", specifically in the middle east, and specifically with iran and iraq.
it didn't help matters that in the early 2000s iraq, iran, and north korea moved their central bank reserves from dollars to euros, and were shortly thereafter referred to by our dear leader as the axis of evil.
another just war, hmmm, how about the american revolution...world war II...
By 
, at
Wed May 10, 09:19:00 PM:
I ,too, support wars in other people's countries. I wonder which of us would advocate that civil war in the US today would result in a better country 50 years from now? Democrats vs Republicans, what do you say?
What would we do if we found Canada fomenting civil war here? I hardly think we would find this a good idea.
Silver linings in dark clouds do not mean we should create thunderstorms.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed May 10, 10:36:00 PM:
No rational American seriously thinks that civil war in the US would be a good thing because we have a stable, happy society in which people have the *luxury* to bitch about high gas prices (for their multi-thousand dollar vehicles) and whether they think that a war to topple a foreign government is morally correct. Read: our country is stable, influential, and strong enough to *topple a foreign power* in less than six months, including buildup, and the biggest problem with it is that people are uneasy whether it was 'right.'
By Counter Trey, at
Thu May 11, 05:51:00 PM:
Lanky,
I rarely read lefty blogs. Why search for lefty blogs when the NY Times; Newark Star Ledger; CBS, ABC and NBC Evening News; and every network television show and studio-made movie are in easy reach?
I grew up in a NY suburb and went to local universities. The majority of everyone I know or talk to is liberal. Just about everyone I've worked for or who worked for me is a liberal. I don't need to get out and meet any more of you.
Finally, wars should not be fought or avoided based on popular polls. They should be fought by US soldiers when US interests are at stake. Our interests were at stake in Iraq. I'm glad we have a president who understood that three years ago. I'm glad that Bush, unlike Clinton, ignored the polls. The cost of lobbing cruise missiles at camels and tents is an enemy emboldened to steer airliners at skyscrapers.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu May 11, 06:25:00 PM:
trey,
1. Liberal blogs are much better reading than the corporate media you mention above. Cruise the Scrutiny Hooligans "Artful Bloggers" section for good sites.
2. The Iraq war, following months of fear-mongering and lies, was supported by most people in America when it was launched. Hell, the corporate media barely even covered the millions who turned out to protest it. Let's not pretend Bush went against the polls at the time. He manipulated the media by manipulating the facts in order to get those poll numbers up. Then he went ahead and did what he planned to do long before 9/11.
btw - Which interests were at stake in Iraq? You lost me there.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 11, 07:54:00 PM:
How toppling Saddam was in US interests has been covered in great detail on this site's comments at least by myself and Cardinalpark, I think adressing you personally. We can't help it if you didn't pay attention.
Supershort summation; state sponsor of terrorism felled, US credibility of action boosted, strategic foothold gained, status quo destabilized/chance at new ME democracy.
And please, would you conspiracy mongering... people... drop the "Bush lied" crap? *EVERYONE* thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, including us, the French, British, Russians, Iranians, and the IRAQI ARMY. I've even heard it from a high level US military interrogator that even Saddam, thanks to the maze of half-truths, sideways language, and lies that made up day to day Iraqi government, might have thought that he had them available.
So quit it. As righteously indignant and dramatic as it might sound, it is wrong.
By Admin, at
Thu May 11, 09:39:00 PM:
btw, i have been paying attention, i just dont happen to believe any of your arguments hold much water outside the rightwing blogosphere and shrinking circle of neo-con jerks.
you may have thought he had WMD, but neither myself nor any of my politically minded friends did.
we've been shouting at the top of our lungs from the beginning about it.
neither did the un weapons inspectors.
neither did the CIA.
if that is your excuse, fine, if it makes you feel better about 1 trillions dollars, 17,000 wounded, and 2,500 deaths - fine...
have you even read the PNAC's papers?
and who are we kidding about paying attention to polls? bush and ashcroft played the US public like a fiddle with the terror alert system, which was so convienently disgarded once bush won a second term.
please, the reasons for this war have been shifting since the beginning.
you want the real reason? this isn't about democracy; we invaded iraq because it switched its reserve currency to the euro in 2000, so did north korea, and iran - ironically enough, they are the axis of evil.
this is about propping up the dollar...
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri May 12, 07:31:00 PM:
Did I mention the CIA? No, I don't think I did. But since you brought it up, there are more than a dozen intelligence 'agencies' in the US. If you recall (and you probably don't, what with wingnut selective memory syndrome and all) the information used most often to prop up the idea of Saddam's WMDs was Signals and Image, neither of which are the forte' of the CIA. So small wonder.
Your opinions and those of your 'politically minded friends' don't matter. *You* do not get briefed by intelligence, diplomatic, and military professionals daily. *You* do not have access to covertly gathered information. And no matter how much you think otherwise, *you* are out of your element. I can proclaim my opinions on the topic of brain surgery, but no one will take me seriously because I am not qualified to do so and have no place trying. The people who mattered in this instance, the national leadership of the nations I mentioned, did think so.
And the UN inspectors *did* think that Saddam had them, but made very sure to say that they weren't absolutely sure and wanted more time. This was seen almost unanimously in political circles as a cop out. Mr. Blix was ridiculed for weeks. LSMS again?
Hmm, PNAC.
"The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative American think tank, based in Washington, DC. The controversial group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership." The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. The group is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a non-profit 501c3 organization that is funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation. [1]
Critics allege the controversial organization proposes military and economic, space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish — or maintain — American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana). [citation needed] Some have argued the American-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.
Supporters of the PNAC counter such criticisms as little more than conspiracy theories and that the organization's stated mission is mainstream conservative foreign policy proposals."
Does that about sum it up?
Oh. Right. So a war was launched to punish a country with which we had no relations for not buying our currency. Where are you from? Because I never want to go there.
By Admin, at
Sat May 13, 11:46:00 AM:
suit yourself, dawn.
me and my friends were able to figure out there weren't WMD in iraq because we paid attention, but the smartest people in the intelligence community and the folks at the whitehouse could figure it out?
please...
iraq had been planned for years, 9-11 was an excuse to invade.
and once again, did you read the published papers of the PNAC for yourself, or did you google PNAC for that accurate but lightweight tripe, which dismisses the critics as "conspiracy theorist."
i am a conspiracy theorist for acknowledging the PNAC's own publicly revealed agenda?
read the PNAC own papers, and perhaps, youll stop with the "coencidence theories" and realize yes they have stated their intentions from the beginning, and their intentions are to what I'm referring.
perhaps if you actually read the SOURCE documents to which i was referring instead of relying on google...but i digress
btw, im from the reality based community of americans who are suffering at the hands of the continued incompetency of the bush administration and their flunkies.
maybe one day youll understand.
i still dont get that every single scandal that comes out regarding this administration is routinely (1) ignored, or (2) defended.
what gives here...
and yes, iraq was about oil and propping up the dollar.
so is iran...
