Not long after the Iraq invasion, when things started to get more complicated, some anti-war leaders in Congress and elsewhere started saying that it had become a civil war. I suspect they were trying to compare it to Vietnam and argue that Iraq is an equally unwinnable war. That bothered me because I've never been convinced that it's a civil war and calling it one provides another rationale to stay there.
Calling the violence in Iraq a civil war implies there are differing factions that will continue to fight each other if U.S. troops leave. That allows those in favor of the war to argue that the US occupation is a stabilizing humanitarian mission that should last until internal conflicts are resolved. It shifts the blame for instigating the violence away from the US invasion and onto the Iraqis themselves. If its truly a sectarian civil war then we would see widespread examples of Iraqis attacking other Iraqis who have nothing to do with the occupation.
A war of resistance against a foreign occupier is very different than a civil war. A war of resistance has two targets. First, the occupying army, and second, those who cooperate with the occupying force. Are Iraqi fighters attacking other Iraqis because they belong to a different religious or ethnic group, or are they targeting those who cooperate with US forces?
Today's story about an attack is typical.
The violence appeared to signal a renewed insurgent campaign against Iraqi police. Several witnesses to the Jadriya bombing noted that the attackers could have achieved a much higher casualty count by targeting one of the many outdoor cafes, restaurants and ice-cream parlors that line the street.
Instead, the attackers waited until a patrol from the police commando squad known as the Maghawir passed. The commandos patrol Baghdad in lightly armored pickup trucks, and five of the officers were wounded, along with six civilians.
There are two ways to end a war of occupation. The easy way is to leave. Just leave. Right away. We don't need to stay and remake their government according to our wishes. We don't need to rebuild their country. We can pay them reparations to do it themselves. Our departure is the only way violence will stop because the presence of US troops is the primary motivator causing the violence. No amount of time spent staying in Iraq will ever improve the situation. It will only add more members to the resistance.
The only other way to win is complete totalitarian brutality. Saddam Hussein at least had the support of a portion of the population during his horrible dictatorship. The United States won't have that advantage. We'll need more troops, more prisons, more police state control, more torture, and more general brutality to control the country than existed under Hussein. Personally, I don't think the American public is ready to support its government in carrying out the kind of horrors it will take to completely subjugate Iraq.
The more news I see out of Iraq, the more I'm convinced that this was always a resistance against a foreign occupier and not a civil war. There are tensions between religious and ethnic groups but I have yet to see evidence that their infighting will be worse than the casualties under the occupation.
